New NHL changes

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

this has been something that i have been thinkin about for a while. how could the nhl be better? heres what i think.

 

get rid of divisions and conferences. that way anybody could play anybody in the stanley cup and in the playoffs. also the best teams would always make the playoffs. just have one conference, call it the nhl conference or whatever, and the top 16 teams make the playoffs. to keep rivalries alive, just keep the same scheduleing. we can still play ottawa and blah blah 8 times a year or whatever.

 

get rid of the points system but keep the shootout. just go with wins losses it makes everything easier and makes more sense. i do like the no tie thing and the shootout is cool so that should stay. shootoutloss counts as a regular loss and shootout win counts as a regular win. easy as cake.

[carpandean]

You think that's what's going to fix the NHL? Living up to your user name, eh?

 

 

 

Sorry, still pissed at what I watched tonight, so I'm having trouble walking that fine line between poking fun and firing hand grenades. :blush:

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

You think that's what's going to fix the NHL? Living up to your user name, eh?

 

 

 

Sorry, still pissed at what I watched tonight, so I'm having trouble walking that fine line between poking fun and firing hand grenades. :blush:

ok. i didnt say anything about fixing the nhl. i was just talkin about possible changes that could make it better.

[carpandean]

ok. i didnt say anything about fixing the nhl. i was just talkin about possible changes that could make it better.

I really was kidding. It's just that there are a lot of worse things that need fixing ... in some cases, need fixing again (ref: post-lockout "new NHL".)

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

I really was kidding. It's just that there are a lot of worse things that need fixing ... in some cases, need fixing again (ref: post-lockout "new NHL".)

elaborate. thats what this thread is for.

[carpandean]

Consistency in penalty calling and specifically leaning toward the calling interference or holding to eliminate the clutching and grabbing. Pretty much, you don't see nice hockey goals much anymore unless one team is playing as badly as the Sabres were tonight.

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

Consistency in penalty calling and specifically leaning toward the calling interference or holding to eliminate the clutching and grabbing. Pretty much, you don't see nice hockey goals much anymore unless one team is playing as badly as the Sabres were tonight.

thats a good one, also i see alot of cross checkings go uncalled.

[shrader]

get rid of divisions and conferences. that way anybody could play anybody in the stanley cup and in the playoffs. also the best teams would always make the playoffs. just have one conference, call it the nhl conference or whatever, and the top 16 teams make the playoffs. to keep rivalries alive, just keep the same scheduleing. we can still play ottawa and blah blah 8 times a year or whatever.

 

This would never fly. With each conference playing very different schedules, there is no way that you can say that the Western 9 or 10 seed is better than the Eastern 7 or 8. They don't play each other or similar teams enough to make that determination. With Eastern teams playing Eastern teams very heavily, and Western teams playing Western teams very heavily, you can only say they're better than the teams in their own conference. 18 games just isn't enough. And you'll never see a schedule that does have more matchups between conferences because the logistics are a nightmare.

 

In the long run, it really doesn't matter anyway. If a team can't beat out 8 teams in their own conference, they're not going to make a lot of noise in the playoffs. Sure, there might be that one fluke situation, but would that team have really earned that shot? The regular season is by far the bulk of the NHL season. It has to mean something.

[bob_sauve28]

I was watching a show on NHL network and Bret hull was saying that they should eliminate the offsides as it is now. He wanted to just make it more wide open. He wanted to make it so you couldn't pass from your zine to the attacking zone, but once you clear your zone you should be ableto pass anywhere on the ice

[Weave]

I was watching a show on NHL network and Bret hull was saying that they should eliminate the offsides as it is now. He wanted to just make it more wide open. He wanted to make it so you couldn't pass from your zine to the attacking zone, but once you clear your zone you should be ableto pass anywhere on the ice

 

I like that idea alot. I wonder what that would do to the neutral zone trap?

[inkman]

I like that idea alot. I wonder what that would do to the neutral zone trap?

I wonder what effect it would have on players like Kovulchuk? He may never leave the opposing goalie's crease.

[bob_sauve28]

I wonder what effect it would have on players like Kovulchuk? He may never leave the opposing goalie's crease.

That's one point one of the commentators brought up, that it might actually slow the game down. I'd like to see it in pre-season just to see how it worked. I was so happy when they got rid of that ridicilous two line off side rule.

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

This would never fly. With each conference playing very different schedules, there is no way that you can say that the Western 9 or 10 seed is better than the Eastern 7 or 8. They don't play each other or similar teams enough to make that determination. With Eastern teams playing Eastern teams very heavily, and Western teams playing Western teams very heavily, you can only say they're better than the teams in their own conference. 18 games just isn't enough. And you'll never see a schedule that does have more matchups between conferences because the logistics are a nightmare.

 

In the long run, it really doesn't matter anyway. If a team can't beat out 8 teams in their own conference, they're not going to make a lot of noise in the playoffs. Sure, there might be that one fluke situation, but would that team have really earned that shot? The regular season is by far the bulk of the NHL season. It has to mean something.

yeah it probly wouldnt work, but i think it would be more fair that way.

[Weave]

That's one point one of the commentators brought up, that it might actually slow the game down. I'd like to see it in pre-season just to see how it worked. I was so happy when they got rid of that ridicilous two line off side rule.

 

Maybe it does slow the game down but the biggest benefit would be all of the ice that gets freed up. Teams wouldn't be able to clog the neutral zone if a forward got in behind them. They'd have to respect the guy in deep and that would mean fewer bodies in the neutral zone.

 

I think the idea deserves some looking into.

[Stoner]

this has been something that i have been thinkin about for a while. how could the nhl be better? heres what i think.

 

get rid of divisions and conferences. that way anybody could play anybody in the stanley cup and in the playoffs. also the best teams would always make the playoffs. just have one conference, call it the nhl conference or whatever, and the top 16 teams make the playoffs. to keep rivalries alive, just keep the same scheduleing. we can still play ottawa and blah blah 8 times a year or whatever.

 

get rid of the points system but keep the shootout. just go with wins losses it makes everything easier and makes more sense. i do like the no tie thing and the shootout is cool so that should stay. shootoutloss counts as a regular loss and shootout win counts as a regular win. easy as cake.

 

Top 16, league wide, 1 vs. 16 etc. was the playoff format from 76-81. And the first round was best of three (until 80, I think).

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

Top 16, league wide, 1 vs. 16 etc. was the playoff format from 76-81. And the first round was best of three (until 80, I think).

really? whyd they change it?

[carpandean]

really? whyd they change it?

Rivalries? If you have five teams playing each other 8 times (now 6) a year for one guaranteed top-three spot, as well as the remaining 5 playoffs spots (along with the other ten teams), then you get better rivalries.

 

Another reason might be travel. The Eastern Conference, especially, has very little (and had even less) travel time/expense compared to an open league.

[Stoner]

really? whyd they change it?

 

82 began a division format. I think they wanted to build up the divisional rivalries.

 

Travel might have been a concern. The Sabres played Vancouver one year in the first round, which was crazy.

[carpandean]

82 began a division format. I think they wanted to build up the divisional rivalries.

 

Travel might have been a concern. The Sabres played Vancouver one year in the first round, which was crazy.

Great minds think alike, eh?

[Weave]

Top 16, league wide, 1 vs. 16 etc. was the playoff format from 76-81. And the first round was best of three (until 80, I think).

 

I always liked the best of 3 format for the 1st round. Didn't like the league-wide seeding tho.

 

I'd like to see a return to division-based playoffs, at least for the first round. What I would like is to have the top 2 teams from each division get in and then the next best 2 teams in each coference also get in to make 8. Favor division rival pairs for as many series as you can. Then go to a conference-based seeding for the remaining rounds. It would probably be a bit more complicated than that to work out but my point is to favor divions rivals. I remember Buffalo playing Boston, Montreal, and Quebec alot in the playoffs and I really think the emotions from those playoff series carried over into the regular season and spiced up the regular season games alot.

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

Rivalries? If you have five teams playing each other 8 times (now 6) a year for one guaranteed top-three spot, as well as the remaining 5 playoffs spots (along with the other ten teams), then you get better rivalries.

 

Another reason might be travel. The Eastern Conference, especially, has very little (and had even less) travel time/expense compared to an open league.

who gives a crud about travel, theyd be doing the same thing if it was a buffalo vancouver stanley cup.

[carpandean]

who gives a crud about travel, theyd be doing the same thing if it was a buffalo vancouver stanley cup.

You are assuming your idea that they still play within divisions to keep up rivalries. Back when it was the top 16 teams, each team played every other team four times. So, travel was greatly reduced by moving more games toward geographically closer opponents.

 

I'm not sure that anyone would buy into taking the best sixteen teams, while still keeping division-heavy schedules. People already question doing it in each conference.

[Fire Lindy Ruff NOW]

You are assuming your idea that they still play within divisions to keep up rivalries. Back when it was the top 16 teams, each team played every other team four times. So, travel was greatly reduced by moving more games toward geographically closer opponents.

 

I'm not sure that anyone would buy into taking the best sixteen teams, while still keeping division-heavy schedules. People already question doing it in each conference.

im saying you could do that, but it doesnt matter to me, i just think it would be cool to have the top 16 teams make the playoffs. seems to make more sense.

[carpandean]

im saying you could do that, but it doesnt matter to me, i just think it would be cool to have the top 16 teams make the playoffs. seems to make more sense.

Well, the big argument against having a division-biased schedule, but choosing the the top eight teams in the conference is that teams in a weak division have an inflated record from playing bad teams. For example, during the past couple of years, Washington was good, but the remaining four teams in the SW were bad. The Caps would have gotten in anyway, but one of the other four could have gotten in due to easy points from the remaining three, beating out a second or third-best team in a strong division, which was actually a better team. In other words, the best records aren't necessarily the best teams, if the schedules aren't the same. So, the benefit isn't really that great unless you go back to each team playing each other team the same number of times. Of course, that would mean a 116 game schedule if teams are to have even home/away splits (87, if they don't.)

[shrader]

Well, the big argument against having a division-biased schedule, but choosing the the top eight teams in the conference is that teams in a weak division have an inflated record from playing bad teams. For example, during the past couple of years, Washington was good, but the remaining four teams in the SW were bad. The Caps would have gotten in anyway, but one of the other four could have gotten in due to easy points from the remaining three, beating out a second or third-best team in a strong division, which was actually a better team. In other words, the best records aren't necessarily the best teams, if the schedules aren't the same. So, the benefit isn't really that great unless you go back to each team playing each other team the same number of times. Of course, that would mean a 116 game schedule if teams are to have even home/away splits (87, if they don't.)

 

Ahhh, which brings it back to the logistical nightmare comment that I made earlier. Other than that though, the biggest factor of all is money. They could in theory make all of these changes we're talking about, but they're not willing to take on the costs involved. Personally, I have no problem with that being the main motivational factor.