Like a huge chunk of this country (and just about everyone in Canada), I enjoyed a heavy dose of Olympic hockey over the past two weeks. And during one of the games, NBC’s cameras caught Gary Bettman, the NHL Commissioner, sitting with the IOC Commissioner. The play-by-play guy, “Doc” Emrick, remarked that there was a lot of power there in that meeting…
….and I immediately reached for something to throw at the TV.
Photo courtesy of "Melt Your Face Off"
Seriously? The IOC Commissioner? Maybe. Bettman? Hell no.
Gary Bettman has destroyed the NHL. He took a sport that had a good following and a good TV contract with ESPN and allowed an ill-advised lockout to kill all of it.
Ugh… so I began to think about what I’d change if I was in charge of the NHL, so here goes:
The TV Contract
First thing’s first. Get a better TV contract. I would take the lowest priced offer from ESPN2 for a two-year contract to show the league’s contests. Two years to show it works, then re-negotiate.
Think about it. The X-Games went from an afterthought to a very popular sporting event because of ESPN2. Hockey used to be popular, but disappeared. This is not a time for pride, and Versus is horrible anyway. Take the production over to ESPN and give ABC a Saturday afternoon contest that advertises the hell of their NBA line-up on Sundays.
Organizational Changes
I would kill off the financially struggling teams that are in warm-weather markets. That means Phoenix and Tampa. Let’s face it, neither team is needed, and the NHL doesn’t need to carry Phoenix’s debt any longer.
I would also eliminate the multiple divisions and take the league back to the days of the Wales and Campbell Conferences with their respective divisions (Adams and Patrick; Norris and Smythe). Top teams in each division get into the playoffs, then the top 6 of each conference get in as well. Playoff system stays the same.
Lastly, I would require that all teams play every other team in the league a total of four times–twice at home and twice away. The popularity of the sport depends on the fans. Give the fans two chances to see every team every year.
Rule Changes
- Kill the trapezoid rule for goalies. Part of the excitement in the Olympics was seeing the goalies who tried to make a difference outside of the net. Let’s get that excitement back.
- Adopt the 3-second crease violation rule from international hockey. Much like QBs in football, goalies are needed in hockey. Let’s protect them a bit.
- Enforce the entire two or four minutes for every penalty, regardless of whether a goal is scored or not. Reason: Power plays are exciting. Make them more exciting and important by making sure the penalized team has to fight the whole penalty time off every time. You could see a 4-goal power play, or a good penalty kill, but it’s two minutes of gripping tension that make for good TV.
- I know I’m going to get killed by the purists (and I’m one of them) for this, but get rid of fighting. And by get rid of it, I mean punish it the way international hockey rules do: immediate ejection from the game plus a one-game suspension thereafter. Why? Because the casual parental fans view fighting as a negative. And you need them to have a successful product.
That’s about all I have. If you were running the NHL, what would you change?
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
If the officiating doesn’t straighten up, soon, fighting will have to remain in the game.
Todays refs are so flip-floppy when it comes to making decent calls, if a call is made at all, that fighting is still needed to keep things (players) in line.
Other than that, I’d like to welcome you to the NHL, Commissioner Cohen.
Yeah, officiating is definitely an issue (like with all major sports). It’s especially a problem with an insanely fast sport like hockey. Not sure what the solution would be, whether it’s more officials or “only call the obvious ones.”
I’m not against fighting personally, and I understand its role in the game, but I also know that you can’t market the game with that aspect a major part of it. Unfortunately, with the continued softening on the American psyche (MMA notwithstanding), fighting will be a negative rather than a positive. And I’d rather have people attending the games for the flow of the game, rather than hoping to see a fight.
That said, thanks for reading and commenting! I look forward to helping bring this great game back to glory!
.-= Scott Cohen´s last blog ..An Email Snob Interview with Shannon Holato =-.
Getting hockey on ESPN is priority #1, 2, 3, 4 for the NHL. Getting hockey seen by more people is important for the growth of the league. Versus is a two-bit channel who can be free to show bullfighting to their hearts content, but is no place for a major sports league. With proper marketing the NHL can be on par with the NFL, MLB, and NBA.
I would like the NHL to have a zero tolerance policy for hits to the head much like we saw in the Olympics. I would keep fighting in the game since if hits to the head are eliminated, the problem with fighting will cease to exist. If at all possible, the NHL should consider moving to an international sized rink. The wider rink would make neutral zone traps a less desirable strategy and you would see more flow in the game, something I think we all want.
Josh: Excellent point on the zero tolerance policy on hits to the head. You’re right, it would likely take care of the fighting problem as it is. I would agree that the international size rink would be a good idea, but may not be necessarily feasible at least immediately. Perhaps a wider goal by a few inches in each direction could make enough of a difference as well.
.-= Scott Cohen´s last blog ..An Email Snob Interview with Shannon Holato =-.
I don’t agree that they should eliminate fighting or instill a 3-second rule. Here is what I think they should do:
1. Make the blue-line a floating blue-line. When you cross the blue line, center ice becomes the blue line / zone. In other words, the puck must be cleared across center to clear the zone or get it out.
2. I think they should move the icing line back to you own blue line. Icing only should occur if you dump it down the ice from within your own end.
3. If games are worth 3 at all, then all games should be worth 3 points. A regulation win should carry more power than an OT or shootout win.
4. I liked when there were no conferences for playoffs. 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, etc… would lead to some VERY INTERESTING playoff matchups. They could still have conferences and divisions for regular season rivalries and matchups, but shouldn’t it be possible t have a rivalry meet for the Stanley Cup? Imagine a Boston-Montreal final or Detroit-Chicago final? Right now it is impossible to have that happen and THAT is stupid. East vs. West makes the Stanley Cup Finals very very boring.
corpfan1´s last [type] ..Why The Boston Bruins Should Trade Tim Thomas Now
Corpfan: I’m curious as to why you disagree on fighting. But let me address your suggestions:
1. I like this idea, particularly on power plays. Makes the penalty kill that much more difficult, and discourages taking penalties even more.
2. I agree with half of this. I still think icing should require the puck to make it all the way down the ice (and be automatic), but I agree it should only be icing if the puck is emptied from within your own defensive zone.
3. So 3 points for a regulation win, and each team gets 1 point for reaching overtime, with the winning team (whether in OT or shootout) getting a 2nd point? I like that idea. Reward regulation wins, absolutely.
4. I like this idea. Maybe a compromise would be to divide the conferences into two divisions, with division winners guaranteed spots (for some regular season rivalry), and let the other 12 filter in from any conference. Seed the tournament based on record (with division winners only having guaranteed spots, not top 4 seeds). Interesting concept! I especially like the possibility of a Boston-Montreal final like your example.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting!
Scott Cohen´s last [type] ..A Redskins Fan Open Letter to Mike Shanahan