A few crashes ago I posted an idea to re-structure the NHL, which in many ways made it look more like the way European soccer leagues work (no promotion/relegation though). Maybe I'm different than most people, but I'm not a huge fan of four month playoffs and can't for the life of me figure out why hockey determines it's champion in June. So unless they play 5 games a wwek, the only way to move the Finals to May is to eliminate a couple playoff rounds. And while we're at it... The "New" NHL * Contract two teams, down to 28 total teams (14 per conference) instead of the current 30/15. I'm sure we can find two to get rid of. None of the contracted teams should be Canadian (there's only 6 as it is), so we need to find a way to save Ottawa. Atlanta sounds like a good candidate. * Eliminate divisions, which only serve to get crappy Southeastern teams a #3 seed (unlike the NFL and MLB where they mean something), and just go to two conferences of 14 teans each. * Balanced schedule, each team plays the other 13 teams in its conference four times and the other twice, total of 4*13 + 2*14 = 80 games, down slightly from the current 82. * When possible, have three hockey games per week on a regular schedule, so that certain days are "hockey days". * Eliminate overtime in the regular season, and switch to the soccer system of 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and most radically of all, 0 for a loss. This will keep most games under 2:30 and increase the incentive to go for the win in regulation instead of waiting until OT to guarantee yourself a point. It may increase ties, but at least you'll be able to express your team's record in 3 columns instead of 4. No one will allowed to say "overtime loss" or "regulation tie" ever again. Overtime would be reserved for the SC Finals and cup games (see below). At the very least, get rid of 4 on 4 overtime. It's exciting, but it's not real hockey. * Eliminate the first three rounds of the playoffs, having only conference winners advance to the Stanley Cup finals. That saves 6+ weeks right there. Each confrence would play the same schedule, so there would be a fair way of determining the conference champion. Instead: * Create a world championship for club teams, say 16 teams, held in a different location each year. NHL gets 4 teams, the other leagues can divide up the other 12 spots somehow. 4 groups of 4 play single-round robin, top 2 advance to single-elimination quarterfinals. Should only take 1-2 weeks. Would be held after the Stanley Cup finals each year in late May. NHL participants would be the two Stanley Cup finalists, the NHL Open Cup winner, plus a bonus 4th team. * Open Cup: Single elimination 32 team tournament held throughout the season (like soccer's FA Cup), maybe one game a month. Random draw for all rounds (not by conference), location also random. Draws could be good filler for intermission reports on ABC/ESPN or something. Winner qualifies for the World Club championship. Since the NHL only has 28 teams now, need to figure out what to do with the other 4 open slots. Maybe give the SC Finalists a first round bye or invite minor-league teams. I realize this is a new concept for the USA for the most part, but it's not as if we're risking a bunch of fans turning off their TV's (NHL ratings are quite pathetic, at least in the U.S.). We also of course need a good name. * Bonus WCC Spot: Teams finishing 2-5 in each conference enter single-elimination tournament held during off-days of Stanley Cup. This way good teams who won't win the title have something to play for. Or make it 2-7 and give 2 & 3 first round byes. Note that by going down to #7 half the teams make the post-season, just like now. * International Games: In non-Olympic years, have two Saturdays dedicated to international games (one before the new year, and one after), with no games the Thursday before those or the Tuesday after. Have Canada vs. USA every year as one of the two for each. Plus gives players a chance to go home once a year, and the Ken Danekyo types a week's rest twice a year. Good way to show TV audiences what really good Olympic-type hockey looks like. For Olympic years the NHL would take the 2-3 weeks off as it has recently. * By 2008 adopt the international-size ice. More space for creative players that way. It worked for the Olympics. * Figure out some type of salary cap so teams stay in business, maybe a percentage of revenue/assets instead of a single figure for each team? A maximum salary maybe? Obviously for the creation of the WCC and International games you would need some cooperation from the international hockey federation, but once they realize the money they can generate they'll go along. The hope is of course that regular season games start to have a playoff intensity since each game will mean so much more (at least early in the season). At least it will be simple. Flame away!
I don't like most of the ideas: - smaller league: why? I'm far away from USA, but it's a big country, there's no necessity to play with less. - division: that's easier to get rid off. The division with the Caps is ridiculous. I mean, maybe keep the divisions for some scheduling matters, but I wouldn't give a guaranteed playoff spot for a division winner - balanced schedule: would be more fair, I agree with that. There are difference ways to calculate that. Maybe without divisions, play twice against the teams of the other conference and four times against the ones of your conference - make 86 games, no big difference to now - hockey days: I don't think that this is possible if you got play that many games. Consider that the arenas must be free on these days. - overtime: no, keep it. The NHL overtime is great. In Germany they have a penalty shootout in case of a draw - that's ridiculous. Overtime with nothing to lose gives great action. - point system: I like the one we have in Germany - 3 for a win, 0 for a loss, 2 for a win in shutout (which would be overtime in NHL) and 1 for reching overtime. This would keep the four columns though. - playoffs: no, please no playoff reduction. - World Club Championship (and other international tournament ideas): no, hockey is a national game in the leagues. I don't like this international idea in hockey. Also, the real WC is already held during the NHL playoffs, so the European players already played a whole season plus the World Cup - that's enough exhaustion for them. - Open Cup: no, we introduced that in German hockey, it's ridiculous. The European soccer system with cup competition only exists because we have no playoffs after the season. Regular season plus playoffs plus cup is too much. - larger surface: no, the tight ice is better. I'd rather love to see IIHF adopt the North American size.
The U.S. is a big country to be sure (especially when you add Canada), but there's still a limited talent pool. Contraction would get rid of the 40-odd worst players in the league, so the quality of play would slightly improve in theory. I didn't work out if 3 games per week would be enough to finish the season in time, but if it is it would be nice. Most if not all NHL teams have scheduling priority in conjuction with the NBA, so availability shouldn't be a problem. No other American sport takes 4 numbers to describe a team's record, so 4 is rediculous. Teams should not be rewarded for losing. Removing even one playoff round and adding a cup competition would still result in most teams playing fewer games, so I don't see that as an issue. After watching the Olympics, the larger ice surface is badly needed. The ice now is too small for how big the players have gotten. The skill players, the ones the fans pay to watch, need room to operate.
As to the idea of playing three games per week, hockey is more traumatic on the body than basketball. That's why the NHL can't compress its schedule. Reducing the length of the season would be the only way. I'm surprised a European prefers the smaller surface of the NHL since there's a ground-swell here for the international size. Though the NHL says it's not feasible. The most common reason given is that it would require the removal of high-priced seats, which I don't quite believe. They could just raise the overall ticket prices to compensate. It's been suggested that the NBA co-tennants would object, but that's not a problem in Detroit, St. Paul, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, South Florida, San Jose, Uniondale, Tampa, St. Louis, Buffalo, Raleigh, Columbus, and Pittsburgh where the NHL clubs are the sole tennants of note. Nor in Boston and Los Angeles where the NHL clubs own their arenas. Nor in Toronto and Denver where the NHL clubs are the primary tennants.
Two reasons: 1) If you are prepared to let 8 teams from each conference into the playoffs, it is quite likely at least one team will have a losing record. So it is possible for your league champion to have a losing record. That's not good. 2) Playoff hockey is the best because unlike the regular season, every game means something. The less playoff rounds you have, the more important the regulat season is. So eliminating 3 rounds of the playoffs would make the regular season critical. How often does hockey get made fun of because "every team makes the playoffs" and "the regular season means nothing?"
FWIW, the Hurricanes share their arena with NC State basketball. Elimate 3 rounds? Without promotion/relagation or European qualification at stake, this would render most games late in the season meaningless. Yes, that would be grrrreat for hockey! I've never heard this before.
Well, maybe two, can go with 2 divisions of 6/7 to determine playoff spots. I think the NHL does play 3 games per week now (at least, sometimes 4). So, reducing the amount of playoffs would give you an extra week or two of regular season to play with, which might be enough. I did propose a World Club Championship which would hopefully in time become similar to European qualification (which would be quite tough for a North American team). Opening up qualification in the post-season WCC qualification tournament to spots 2-7 in each conference would give teams something to play for. It may not be the same as being in the Stanley Cup playoffs, but it would be something. Hockey cannot raise ticket prices now, it's quite expensive as it is, at least in NJ. What they really need is a good TV deal. Of course that would require ratings, which they don't have. Not saying this will solve all the problems the NHL faces (seeing as one of the biggest is the state of the Canadian dollar for example), but it would be something different at least. And the finiacial state of hockey is not good, maybe a shakeup is in order.
On the issue of the international ice surface, it is a bad idea. The "Neutral Zone Trap" was developed in Europe to deal with the larger surface. Canadians are more willing to watch their national teams than the NHL. The main reason is that those who play for Canada are much more passionate for the game. Gary Bettman is upset of the idea that Canada might host the World Championships in 2007. He thinks that it will take away from teh Stanley Cup playoffs.
Playoff hockey is the best hockey played. Your point about the chance of a team with a losing record winning the cup, who really cares? Isn't that part of the beauty of a competition like an Open Cup, which you also suggested? An underdog team going all the way to win it all? I dont think anything needs to change in the NHL...
And then it came here and was even more effective, since there is less neutral zone to trap. Funny, every hockey fan I know liked Olympic hockey. Wonder why. Must have been those hurry up face-offs. Well, right now, the World Championships occur during the playoffs, and are as such irrelevant since the best players can't play. Not sure who actually thinks this is a good idea. As for the Open Cup, it would be a separate tournament from the regular NHL season, so the winner would be 4-0 or 5-0 or whatever it is. Besides, no one would think the Open Cup winner was the real NHL champion, nor should they. If the playoffs are so great, why not let everyone in? There must be a reason no one is suggesting that. The NHL is in trouble. Virtually everyone expects a strike in 2 years, and the league may never be the same as a result. So something needs to happen. To believe otherwise is quite unrealistic.
The internationa game has a lot of other things: no touch icing, no long commercial breaks, no red line pass, and game misconducts for fighting. Players with passion make up for the lack of the best players and then some. What makes it popular is that players are invited by their national federations to play. Ryan Smyth took the invitation after Salt Lake, even to the point he delayed surgery for his ankle to attend. Teh tournament is also one that doesn't follow the logic that the Big 6 dominate. Slovakia won the 2002 tournament.
All true, but I think the key attraction (besides the best players) is the larger ice surface, which gives those best players the chance to show their skill. I wouldn't mind the NHL adopting international rules. Holding the World Championships during the NHL playoffs is like England having an international the same day as the final day of the EPL season or FA Cup final. Dumb. If that's the only time they can hold it, they may as well forget it.
IF you watch international competition, the larger ice surface means squat to them. There is no improvement in the game or in the results it creates. This is why many young talents in Europe are leaving to play in Major Junior hockey. They hold it because the Euro seasons have ended it. It's better to watch since players have the passion. The only reason yu guys don't watch it is you don't have your crybaby millionaries to win for ya.
I would think a large part of the reason to move to Canadian Junior Hockey is to more easily get noticed by NHL scouts, and maybe better competition. Why don't they hold the soccer World Cup in April? That way only the passionate players (i.e. not good enough to play in high profile leagues) would play. I fail to see how holding the World Championships during the playoffs of the best league in the world is a better idea then holding it when the most talented players could play. I'm not sure who "you guys" are, but the reason I don't watch is because it's NOT ON TV, because no TV station in the U.S. is going to buy rights to a tournament which excludes the best players.
Not true. Russian players still get drafted while still playing with Russian clubs. Only a few players play major junior. Since when do you need the best players to have a good torunament. If we needed them, we would already have a World Cup. Yet, the best players don't want it because it gets in the way of their golf games. NHL players now only have a couple of months off from the playoffs ending. The NHL the best league in the world? Excuse me while I laughed. It doesn't exclude the best players if they don't accept invitations or if there not from the NHL. You shold do more research before you post.
And here I was, expecting to read some dimwitted posts about how hockey doesn't belong in the south. Of course, now that I've said that, I expect someone to go forward with that concept.
Another GREAT quote signed DoyleG. PS: Heard that the Swedish Elite League kicks all sorts of ass and has 90%+ of the Olympic tournament's final round players in it.
Hockey only belongs where it doesn't have to play second fiddle to NASCAR. There are southern locations that fit this rule, but some of the current locations are violators. Mind you, that's just low-brow typical BigSoccer commentary in my book... can't spend all my life being thoughtful and reasonable, ya know. Since there appears to be people here who might know the answer, I'd like to know if European hockey clubs have youth programs similar to the football clubs. When are hockey kids signing professional contracts over there? How much is a normal transfer fee? Salaries?
Most - at least German - hockey clubs have youth teams, but this depends on the structure. Contracts are signed quite early with about 18, but they usually stay with the youth teams until they are about 20. The chances for young players are increasing though. Most older players just sign one year contracts, so transfer fees are hardly existing.