T1B

NHL and coaches to hold think tank
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?id=112566
TSN.ca Staff
1/25/2005

Six NHL head coaches will be meeting with league officials in Toronto on Wednesday to discuss possible rule recommendations and ideas on improving the game.

The coaches attending the meeting will be Florida's Jacques Martin, Ken Hitchcock of the Philadelphia Flyers, Vancouver Canucks head coach Marc Crawford, Colorado Avalanche head coach Joel Quenneville, Lindy Ruff of the Buffalo Sabres, and Dave Lewis of the Detroit Red Wings.

NHL director of operations Colin Campbell, vice president of operations Mike Murphy, vice president of hockey operations Jim Gregory and supervisor of hockey operations Kris King will also be in attendance, though there is no correlation between this informal meeting and the one taking place Wednesday between the NHL and NHL Players' Association.

The league's coaching think tank comes just a month after Detroit Red Wings forward Brendan Shanahan held his own two-day summit on building a better on-ice product for fans when NHL hockey returns.

The 17-year NHL veteran invited a wide range of contributors from the game, including Crawford, Dave Tippett of the Dallas Stars and John Tortorella of the Stanley Cup champion Tampa Bay Lightning.

I wonder why they haven't invited coach Jacques Lemaire to the think tank :roll:

Watching the ECHL this season, I have become a fan of no touch icing and touch up offsides.

Smoked Meat wrote: I wonder why they haven't invited coach Jacques Lemaire to the think tank :roll:

RACK!!

Well, just like in all cases like this, the outcome will probably mean very little.

First, they'll come up with a list of recommendations to make the game "better" (ie, higher scoring). Some will be obvious, some will be wacky. But in all cases, the conservatives who actually run the sport will scream about integrity of the history of the game and nothing will come of it all.

That said, I've heard that there are already a list of things that are going to be different in the NHL that emerges from the lockout. Things like shootouts, no-touch icing and tag-up offsides are supposedly going to be part of the game, like it or not.

Personally, I'm a fan of all three changes to the game. Whatever it takes to get rid of ties.

The NHL will have to improve it's product if they want the fans to come back and this is the best, if not crucial, time to do it. Prior the lockout many fans had already given up on the game because it wasn't exciting enough or were disillusioned with the salary craze and differences between the rich-poor franchises. Sure no problem Canadian fans will fill their respective team arenas once the lockout is over but many franchises south of the border will be on the endangered species list.

Getting rid of ties is already a great leap forward.

If the NHL wants to survive and thrive in the U.S. it should do the following:

1. Get rid of ties. Overtime is five players aside and you play until you win. Let's see how many teams settle for a point then, specially if one of the teams is on or about to go on a long road trip. The losing team gets nadda. Getting a point for an overtime loss is as stupid as the 'rouge' in the CFL.

2. I like the wider blue lines, allows for more action on powerplays. Keep it in.

3. CALL ABSTRUCTION!!!! I don't care if that means there will be 105 penalties called a game. When is a powerplay ever boring? No 'flow' will be compromised becuase how much 'flow' does a game have when players waterski behind them?

4. GET RID OF THE INSTIGATOR RULE!! This would get rid of high-sticking about five seconds after it was dropped. It will also stop top players from getting cheap shots (that lead to injuries). For all the pansies that don't like fighting, go watch ballet. This will lead to more fighting for a while, but after a few black eyes and bloody lips the repeating offenders will stop.

5. LOWER TICKET PRICES!!! You aren't going to land a big TV deal with empty barns. Price'em low and attract fans.

Hapday wrote:1. Get rid of ties. Overtime is five players aside and you play until you win. Let's see how many teams settle for a point then, specially if one of the teams is on or about to go on a long road trip. The losing team gets nadda. Getting a point for an overtime loss is as stupid as the 'rouge' in the CFL.

I don't like this idea, for a couple of reasons... 1) the season is already too long and grueling to add in the chance of playing a few 6 period games along the way. 2) It would remove the novelty of sudden-death OT in the playoffs. It's one of the things that makes the playoffs special. I love the thought that a game could go all night long if that's how long it takes.

I think 5 minutes of 4 on 4 and a shootout are a good way to go. I completely understand the no shootout argument, but I'm for them. I'm willing to see my team lose a couple heartbreakers in a shootout if I can see them win a couple of thrillers in a shootout. With the 4 on 4 prior to it, I'd bet maybe 5-10% of games actually make it to a shootout, and 100% of those games will make ESPN's highlight reel anyway, which is what we're after here, isn't it?

2. I like the wider blue lines, allows for more action on powerplays. Keep it in.

I like the concept behind this, but if they just moved the nets back close to the end boards the way they were before, the same thing is accomplished. Somebody got the stupid idea that more room behind the nets would lead to more Gretzky-like creativity. Instead, it's created a massive area in the offensive zone where you can't score from. Now all defensemen have to do is steer the opposing forward to a corner, and suddenly he's got no angle to shoot from.

3. CALL ABSTRUCTION!!!! I don't care if that means there will be 105 penalties called a game. When is a powerplay ever boring? No 'flow' will be compromised becuase how much 'flow' does a game have when players waterski behind them?

I agree completely. Sooner or later the players will get it and you'll go back to 5 pp's/per team/per game as usual.

4. GET RID OF THE INSTIGATOR RULE!!

No brainer. I agree 100%.

5. LOWER TICKET PRICES!!! You aren't going to land a big TV deal with empty barns. Price'em low and attract fans.

Not a snowball's chance in hell this happens, but it'd be nice!!

It's a simple matter of supply and demand. The limited supply and huge demand in a place like Toronto will always mean high prices for Leaf tickets. The reverse being true in a place like Phoenix won't necessarily mean the opposite, but maybe it should?

JD wrote:

Hapday wrote:

5. LOWER TICKET PRICES!!! You aren't going to land a big TV deal with empty barns. Price'em low and attract fans.

Not a snowball's chance in hell this happens, but it'd be nice!!

It's a simple matter of supply and demand. The limited supply and huge demand in a place like Toronto will always mean high prices for Leaf tickets. The reverse being true in a place like Phoenix won't necessarily mean the opposite, but maybe it should?

...is in Big D. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 716cd.html

JD wrote:

5. LOWER TICKET PRICES!!! You aren't going to land a big TV deal with empty barns. Price'em low and attract fans.

Not a snowball's chance in hell this happens, but it'd be nice!!

It's a simple matter of supply and demand. The limited supply and huge demand in a place like Toronto will always mean high prices for Leaf tickets. The reverse being true in a place like Phoenix won't necessarily mean the opposite, but maybe it should?

I'm sure most teams that have inflated ticket prices also have high payrolls. If you lower payrolls and salaries across the board, there's no reason to keep ticket prices where they were. The league needs to just work proportionally with what their market share is. They don't have many fans to begin with and by pricing most of them out of going to games will lead to low attendance figures. Make rink side seats no higher than $40-50. You have to give fans a reason to go. If you can watch the games on TV instead of paying $100 to see it live, they'll just assume stay home.

You could also make the season shorter and more meaningful rather than the extended exhibition schedule they've had in the past.It would be nice if the regular season resembled the playoffs at least a little in terms of intensity.

Deckard wrote:You could also make the season shorter and more meaningful rather than the extended exhibition schedule they've had in the past.It would be nice if the regular season resembled the playoffs at least a little in terms of intensity.

Another solution would be to cut the playoff field in half and or just 6 teams make the postseason per conference with the two top seeds getting byes to reward regular season performance. That probably won't happen though. I'm sure the league would like to keep the postseason as is.

You're right though...if they could only bottle some of that playoff action for the regular season, that would make the season better. Usually the few weeks after the trade deadline makes for decent hockey. It's the stuff pre-All Star break that needs a jolt.

I think a 60-64 game season would work. Each team play each of the opposite conference teams once...that's 15 games. Then add 5 more for tradional interconference rivalries (Maple Leafs-Red Wings, etc.) That leaves 40-44 games for conference play. Play each division team 6 times...24 games. The rest divided up with the other conference rivals. In a 64-game schedule..that would leave 20 games so each team can play the other 10 conference opponents home-and-home.

What about teams that don't have a traditional interconference rivalry? ;)

Seeing the Sucks 2 extra times doesn't cut it.

Could always hope for a return to the OLD Norris Division (74-81).... Montreal, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Hartford (79-81), Detroit, and Chicago.

JD wrote:I think 5 minutes of 4 on 4 and a shootout are a good way to go. I completely understand the no shootout argument, but I'm for them. I'm willing to see my team lose a couple heartbreakers in a shootout if I can see them win a couple of thrillers in a shootout. With the 4 on 4 prior to it, I'd bet maybe 5-10% of games actually make it to a shootout, and 100% of those games will make ESPN's highlight reel anyway, which is what we're after here, isn't it?

In the AHL, there have been 79 shootouts after a little more than half a season. Not exactly a huge percentage of games and probably within your 5-10% window. I love the idea of a shootout. Nobody wants to go home after a tie.

4. GET RID OF THE INSTIGATOR RULE!!

No brainer. I agree 100%.

That's cool. But I'd also like to see some use of moden technology to curb some of the hooking and slashing as well. There's no reason a second official couldn't be placed in a replay boot the call flagrant penalties that are not seen by on ice officials. Getting the cheap shot artists into the penalty box before things get out of hand will go a long way towards cleaning up the game.

5. LOWER TICKET PRICES!!! You aren't going to land a big TV deal with empty barns. Price'em low and attract fans.

Not a snowball's chance in hell this happens, but it'd be nice!!

It's a simple matter of supply and demand. The limited supply and huge demand in a place like Toronto will always mean high prices for Leaf tickets. The reverse being true in a place like Phoenix won't necessarily mean the opposite, but maybe it should?

If the league were truly forward thinking, they would find ways to cross market ticket packages with TV deals. Perhaps, if you buy a Center Ice Package, you get a free or reduced price ticket package. Or, if you buy a season ticket package, you get a free Center Ice package as well. Also, the league will never be truly competitive unless revenue sharing is a part of the picture.

OK, now I'm just dreaming.

idk what else has been proposed previously, but two things that i would like to see are removing the red line like college and international play. there is more up and down action and the game flows a little more.

second, enforce the rules the way they are supposed to be called!!
this just started happening this year in college. it was evident in all of the D-III games i have attended. in the beginning many more penalties were called, but once teams got a few games in under their belt, the pace of the game has improved significantly, and are way better to watch. and there is also very little clutching and grabbing.

BSmack wrote:
If the league were truly forward thinking, they would find ways to cross market ticket packages with TV deals. Perhaps, if you buy a Center Ice Package, you get a free or reduced price ticket package. Or, if you buy a season ticket package, you get a free Center Ice package as well. Also, the league will never be truly competitive unless revenue sharing is a part of the picture.

OK, now I'm just dreaming.

Not a bad idea idea though. I think the NHL should get rid of blackouts, period. I am not sure how it works in the states, but in Ottawa all Leafs games are blacked out, except for when they are on Hockey Night in Canada, or a Nationally broadcast game on TSN. Toronto is about four hours southwest of Ottawa, yet in Ottawa we pretty much get every Montreal Canadians game and Montreal is a lot closer than Toronto.

IMO more hockey, not less, on TV is a good thing and will help sell the game. I realize that the NHL just wants to make money on their Center Ice packages but it is a short-term solution.

Hapday wrote:Not a bad idea idea though. I think the NHL should get rid of blackouts, period. I am not sure how it works in the states, but in Ottawa all Leafs games are blacked out, except for when they are on Hockey Night in Canada, or a Nationally broadcast game on TSN. Toronto is about four hours southwest of Ottawa, yet in Ottawa we pretty much get every Montreal Canadians game and Montreal is a lot closer than Toronto.

Here's Direct TV's explaination of a blackout scenario.

"The Boston Bruins are playing the San Jose Sharks. The game is being carried by WSBK-TV in Boston. NHL CENTER ICE customers who live within the Designated Metropolitan Area (viewable TV area) of Boston will be blacked out on the game and will have to watch it on WSBK-TV. NHL CENTER ICE subscribers outside that area will be able to see the game, except the game is being carried on the West Coast by SPORTSCHANNEL Pacific. So, NHL CENTER ICE subscribers within the Sharks Sphere of Influence (an area defined by the NHL) will be blacked out also unless they have Total Choice, Total Choice PLUS ENCORE, Total Choice SILVER, Total Choice GOLD or Total Choice PLATINUM, in which case they will see the game as part of that package."

I'm not sure if that is a blackout scenario or a piece of legislation.

Memo to the NHL: Just bring me the fuckin GAME, not a team of lawyers.

IMO more hockey, not less, on TV is a good thing and will help sell the game. I realize that the NHL just wants to make money on their Center Ice packages but it is a short-term solution.

Agreed. I got turned on to the game back in the early 70s watching ABC's Monday Night Hockey (Yes, I remember Peter Puck) and watching the Don Cherry led Amerks games live with my dad. There may be nothing like live hockey, but you need the TV exposure to keep the interest going between the live games, especialy if you want to grow the game outside your traditional markets.

The whole 'Centre Ice' package is yet another way of the NHL trying to squeeze more blood from the stone that is the average NHL fan.

When and if the game's interest grows, this would make economic sense. Right now there is very little demand in the U.S. for NHL hockey, and they want uninterested parties to pay for the supply?