View Full Version : Cup Run to become tougher
bluemeanie
7-12-05, 10:41 AM
Negotiations continue, and some major changes being discussed...
It's likely four more teams and an extra round will be included in the playoffs when the National Hockey League resumes play, the Toronto Sun has learned.
According to sources, the NHL is considering adding two more teams from each conference and a best-of-three preliminary round added to the four best-of-seven rounds that exist now.
Break Down:
LONGER PLAYOFFS
? 10 teams from each conference would qualify.
? The four teams seeded 7th to 10th in each conference would play a best-of-three round to be completed within six days of the end of the regular season.
? The two winners from each conference would then join the 12 other post-season qualifiers to create the current 16-team playoff.
RULE CHANGES
Other major changes proposed:
? A three-minute, three-on-three period of overtime added in the regular season if the five-minute, four-on-four period doesn't produce a winner.
? If a game is still tied, a shootout involving three players from each team will take place until a winner is determined.
? There will be no ties. Winners get two points, losers none.
Whole Story (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/07/12/1127902-sun.html)
bluemeanie
7-12-05, 10:52 AM
The rest of the proposed changes:
These are just some of the many proposals recently put forth by Colin Campbell, NHL executive vice-president and director of hockey operations.
And although Campbell does not have the authority to institute these changes himself, his recommendations to the board of governors almost are certain to be rubber-stamped.
Under Campbell's proposals, playoff qualification would be tiered with the top 10 teams in each conference qualifying.
The teams finishing seventh through 10th would then have a best-of-three playoff, probably seventh versus 10th and eighth versus ninth.
The precise format of that playoff has yet to be determined, but it is understood that it has to be completed within six days before the next round. Once the season ends, there will be an off-day, followed by back-to-back games, probably a home-and-home matchup.
Then there will be another off-day followed by the third game if necessary. After one more off-day, the full playoffs with 16 teams playing best-of-seven series will begin.
This means a team could now need to play 31 post-season games to win the Stanley Cup, rather than the existing maximum of 28.
In his memo to the general managers explaining the rule recommendations, Campbell expressed a number of admirable aims. But he's walking a very wobbly tightrope.
He said that one of his aims was to increase the number of scoring chances while maintaining the "physicality" of the game.
He wants to let the more skilled players exhibit their talents and take away the defensive team's tools while giving them to the offensive team.
But at the same time, he proposes a two-point system that, in the eyes of some general managers, will merely encourage defensively oriented coaches to become less offensively minded than ever.
It is the league's theory that the new format will militate against defensive coaches. If the game is tied after 60 minutes, the two teams will play a five-minute, four-on-four overtime.
If nothing is settled, they will then play a three-minute three-on-three overtime. If the game remains tied, the shootout begins. The eventual winner earns two points; the loser gets none and there can be no tie games.
The league contends that the fewer players there are on the ice, the harder it is to play defence. Therefore, coaches will try to open up and win the game in regulation before being exposed to four-on-four or three-on-three.
Some GMs fear, however, that the league has underestimated the abilities -- and defensive passion -- that these coaches exhibit. No matter how few players are on the ice, the numbers are still even and a good checker still has only to break even in a one-on-one battle.
As for the shootout, the debate over the format had been solved.
Most GMs expected a five-man shooting rotation, as is the case in international hockey, but some had suggested a full 18-man rotation with every non-goalie taking a shot before any player had his second crack.
Campbell, however, prefers a three-man format, perhaps because some teams don't have five genuine snipers.
These are just some of the highlights of Campbell's proposals, but there are many other recommendations that will change the nature of the game as fans have come to know it.
The reduced size of goaltenders' equipment has been well reported. Also, goaltenders will be limited in their puck handling.
But there's also a new twist. There will be a crackdown on freezing the puck by goaltenders, removing the leeway that had crept in over the course of recent seasons.
The red line will be removed as a factor in off-side calls. Again, this is an area of contention with general managers. Some feel it will open up the game -- and if the league were awarding three points for a regulation-time win, rather than two, that might be the case.
But many GMs are worried that some coaches will just drop defenders back and set up the trap in a slightly different location, thereby making offensive forays even less frequent.
The goal line will be moved back two feet to increase the size of the neutral zone by four feet, and there will be a slight change in the role of the blue line, which has been widened.
The puck will no longer have to cross the entire blue line in order to make the play onside. Now it just has to gain the blue line.
There will, of course, be the mandatory annual crackdown on restraining fouls, and perhaps this time, with all the other changes in place, the enforcement will remain enthusiastic for more than a month.
But Campbell's recommendations include: Zero tolerance on obstruction away from the puck; a re-emphasis on slashing and cross-checking infractions; reduced tolerance on hooking and holding close to the crease; and a general increase in the teaching of the new approach to the players.
In that vein, the officials -- who will now work in established teams over much of the season -- will meet with the team captains and the coaches before each game.
The icing rule also will be changed. A number of hockey people had demanded no-touch icing in the hope of reducing injuries that seemed to be needless. Others said that the integrity of the game required a chase for the puck.
Campbell has come up with an alternative. Next season, there will be a race for the goal line, but a player doesn't have to touch the puck. The player who can first put his stick over the line will be designated as having touched the puck. Using that criterion, the linesmen will either call icing or wave it off.
To no one's surprise, the tag-up rule will be reintroduced even though some GMs, notably Glen Sather of the New York Rangers, remain opposed to it.
The rule allows play to continue even if a player has preceded the puck over the blue line. Instead of immediately whistling the play dead, linesmen will raise an arm to signal a delayed off-side.
The player or players who had entered the zone too early can come out over the blue line and "tag up", just as a baseball player must go back to the base and tag up if he wants to advance after a fly ball has been caught.
There are also some new rules governing the conduct of players, both on and off the ice.
The current instigator rule will be unchanged, with one exception. If a player gets an instigator penalty in the final five minutes of regulation time, he will be ejected and suspended for a game. His coach will be fined $10,000 US and if the league finds out that the team paid the fine (fat chance) the team will be fined $100,000. Each subsequent infraction in a season earns a doubling of the previous penalty.
Diving also is to be discouraged and it is the members of the league's hockey operations office who have the advantage of video replays, not necessarily the referee, who will determine whether an infraction has occurred.
The first incident earns a written warning. The second instance calls for a $1,000 fine and puts the player's name on a list that is to be circulated throughout the league. A third infraction calls for a $2,000 fine and further public notification.
If a player is foolish enough to get caught four times, he is suspended for a game with no right of appeal.
As for players who make derogatory comments about the game or the officials or their decisions, fines will be in order. Their magnitude is still to be determined as part of the ongoing negotiations over the collective bargaining agreement.
Two other oft-proposed changes to inhibit the game-slowing tactics of the defensively minded coaches are to be introduced.
A player who shoots the puck into the stands from his own defensive zone will receive a two-minute delay-of-game penalty. This rule has long applied to goalies so it only makes sense to apply it to the rest of the team.
Also, a team which ices the puck will not be allowed to make a personnel change.
In the past, coaches have told their players that if they're tired and under pressure, simply fire the puck down the ice.
Now, those tired players will have to stay on the ice while the other coach is allowed to send out fresh troops and get a matchup that is to his liking.
These changes form a comprehensive reformation of the game and should allow the coaches to create an entertaining spectacle.
:eek:
Max Power
7-12-05, 10:56 AM
I think I like the proposed rule changes... Good entertainment value
Not sure if I like the playoff structure change but it would be interesting
bluemeanie
7-12-05, 11:01 AM
I think I like the proposed rule changes... Good entertainment value
Not sure if I like the playoff structure change but it would be interesting
Me too, but I have a feeling that my cardiologist won't approve of me watching any overtime anymore.
4 on 4... 3 on 3... shoot out... defibrillator...
So 20 teams make the playoffs??
I think 16 is quite enough. Way to generate that revenue boys, hell why not let every team make the playoffs! 7 game series all around! Let's have 5 months regular season then 5 months of playoffs :conspire:
I'm not sure what's wrong with a 3-point system. Guess there's too much work putting in that extra column in the stats.
I'd rather see them wait on removing the red line as a factor in off-side calls. Do some experimenting in the minors first.
A race to the goal line to decide icings? A defenceman with a really long stick diving and sliding to the goal line to get there first. I dunno, this one seems kinda weird. Why not rock/paper/scissors?
'Diving also is to be discouraged and it is the members of the league's hockey operations office who have the advantage of video replays, not necessarily the referee, who will determine whether an infraction has occurred.'
Great! Now the referee doesn't have to guess if a guy ls tripped or dove. Just call it and let the guys upstairs decide the rest.
What is this all for? To ensure the Leafs still make the playoffs during their "rebuilding" or "time to suck" stage?
bluemeanie
7-12-05, 1:40 PM
What is this all for? To ensure the Leafs still make the playoffs during their "rebuilding" or "time to suck" stage?
What?s that supposed to mean? How is that comment any less rash then the one?s from young Leaf fans that you enjoy spotlighting for us?
Anyway? It may all just be premature speculation at this time?
Colin Campbell played down a Toronto Sun story Tuesday that reported the possible rule changes for the upcoming season.
story (http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/07/12/1128154-cp.html)
scorpionn
7-12-05, 1:47 PM
It may make the playoffs a bit more difficult for the 7th/8th seeds.. perhaps there will be less "cinderella" teams that make it to the finals.
Though it makes it easier for some teams to make the playoffs, and ride a hot goalie (especially if its a best of 3 series).
I'd rather not expand the playoffs anymore and just keep it where it is... unlike some other needed rule changes the playoffs are perfect the way they are right now.
Best of 3 is stupid.
3 shooters instead of 5 because most teams don't have 5 snipers? GEE I WONDER WHY COLIN! Why not just tell Minnesota they're just fine to have nobdoy but Gaborik that can score now?
Race for the redline; retarded.
Finally.. the instigator rule will carry even more now? :curse:
It's not likely but ... you could end up with the 5th best record in the league after a gruelling 80 games. Then have a few bad bounces, hit a few goal posts, and your season is done after 2 playoff games. :thumb:
Madferret
7-12-05, 3:07 PM
It's not likely but ... you could end up with the 5th best record in the league after a gruelling 80 games. Then have a few bad bounces, hit a few goal posts, and your season is done after 2 playoff games. :thumb:
It's happened to teams under the current format (*See Ottawa Senators 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2003-2004)
:D
bluemeanie
7-12-05, 3:11 PM
It's not likely but ... you could end up with the 5th best record in the league after a gruelling 80 games. Then have a few bad bounces, hit a few goal posts, and your season is done after 2 playoff games. :thumb:
I don't believe that the top six placed teams in both conferences would have to play in the three game semi PO. Just teams 7 though ten. And apparently they have to play with a tennis ball, so yeah... there are likely going to be a lot of bad bounces.
I don't believe that the top six placed teams in both conferences would have to play in the three game semi PO. Just teams 7 though ten. And apparently they have to play with a tennis ball, so yeah... there are likely going to be a lot of bad bounces.
Silence!! Luv sayin that. If the two other division winners have poorer records than you, they'd still be seeded higher, unless they're changing that. Like I said, it's unlikely to happen. Once every 379 years if my calculations are correct. End Silence!!
bluemeanie
7-12-05, 3:46 PM
Right, right... stupid seeding format slipped my mind. I suppose it is possible then. Likelihood of once every 379 years you say... I bet that the Sens can continue defying those odds.
Holy ****, why don't we just rename this the XHL? So, in an effort to get new fans, they're going to completely change a game that really only needs a few minor changes and tweaks, making it so that those fans that were definitely going to return won't even recognize the game anymore? Seems like a great idea to me.
The NHL has become the biggest circus in professional sports.:rolleyes:
Newfie John
7-12-05, 7:09 PM
Holy ****, why don't we just rename this the XHL? So, in an effort to get new fans, they're going to completely change a game that really only needs a few minor changes and tweaks, making it so that those fans that were definitely going to return won't even recognize the game anymore? Seems like a great idea to me.
The NHL has become the biggest circus in professional sports.:rolleyes:
There's the biggest hypocritical thing I've seen. Now MD I'm not sure if what I'm about to say fits you but a lot of fans seem to have this attitude now. When the league was making minor changes and tweaks fans said more needs to be done, these little tweaks aren't doing anything.
The NHL has become the biggest circus in professional sports. :rolleyes:While I have to agree with you there, I actually think that expanding the playoff format is a good idea.
There was an interesting segment on The Score's To The Point show tonight, where Al Strachan made the point that allowing two thirds of the league into the postseason is tradition. In the Original Six era, four teams made the playoffs. When the league had 21 teams in the nineties, 16 teams qualified.
The three game playoff for the seven through ten seeds is also a great idea, because it quickly weeds out the teams that shouldn't be there. For example, the 2004 season when Edmonton lost in their last game to miss the playoffs behind Nashville and St. Louis. I believe that the Oilers were a better team and deserved a spot. So with a quick playoff round, those who really deserved the spot will move on.
Also by having 20 teams making the playoffs, that creates interest for a longer period of time in untraditional hockey markets, like Phoenix and Sunrise if their teams are in playoff contention. Owners also profit by having an extra game or two. I think players would like this too, since more would get a chance at playing postseason hockey.
The fans, league, teams, players, owners all benefit by expanding the playoff format. And I do not see any harm of having an exciting three game round to determine who gets into the bigger playoff bracket.
There's the biggest hypocritical thing I've seen. Now MD I'm not sure if what I'm about to say fits you but a lot of fans seem to have this attitude now. When the league was making minor changes and tweaks fans said more needs to be done, these little tweaks aren't doing anything.
I agree that changes need to be made, but I don't know as if the playoff formats, shootouts, 3-on-3 OT, "race for the puck", and other changes are going to make the game that much more exciting. It all seems rather gimicky to me. Maybe they could actually try calling obstruction, taking away the red line, and reducing the size of goaltenders equipment before they start messing with the playoff formats, OT formats, and other minor rules. Just my opinion though.
While I have to agree with you there, I actually think that expanding the playoff format is a good idea.
There was an interesting segment on The Score's To The Point show tonight, where Al Strachan made the point that allowing two thirds of the league into the postseason is tradition. In the Original Six era, four teams made the playoffs. When the league had 21 teams in the nineties, 16 teams qualified.
The three game playoff for the seven through ten seeds is also a great idea, because it quickly weeds out the teams that shouldn't be there. For example, the 2004 season when Edmonton lost in their last game to miss the playoffs behind Nashville and St. Louis. I believe that the Oilers were a better team and deserved a spot. So with a quick playoff round, those who really deserved the spot will move on.
Also by having 20 teams making the playoffs, that creates interest for a longer period of time in untraditional hockey markets, like Phoenix and Sunrise if their teams are in playoff contention. Owners also profit by having an extra game or two. I think players would like this too, since more would get a chance at playing postseason hockey.
The fans, league, teams, players, owners all benefit by expanding the playoff format. And I do not see any harm of having an exciting three game round to determine who gets into the bigger playoff bracket.
That's because we were; not only did Nash and St. Louis when an extremely large amount of 1 goal games (which is a factor of luck - don't believe me? Pittsburgh had the 9th best record in the league in 1 goal games), were both minus teams between GF and GA, but that's besides the point for the time being.
It's not a BAD idea, but I don't think a best of 3 is all that great; still allows for a lot of luck; although it does reward the top 6 teams...
The Insider
7-12-05, 8:09 PM
Boy, after reading the article I am stunned at the amount of changes the league wants to make. I understand the shootout proposal since some people feel ripped off because of a tie, although I still would perfer continuous OT should the game go into OT. The proposal of the expanded playoffs is a clear cash grab for 4 teams, I mean seriously I am sure there are some years where decent teams missed the playoffs but adding the extra teams will only increase the ridiculous length of the season and the cup will be awarded in late June rather then mid June which is a time where hockey should be finished. It will at least give some fans 2 or 3 extra games to watch, but how would you feel if your team played well all season and finished say seventh in a tight conference and then a sub .500 team gets the "wild card" spot and knocks you out in 2 games? I know I'd be pissed, I'd perfer if my team goes out, they do it in a best of 7 and not 3. The race for the line rule is stupid, especially if they move the red lines back since it will pretty much be the same thing except they don't even have to be near the puck to get and icing called or waved off. I like the tag-up and no red line rules, the instigator rule is still dumb and unless they really crackdown on stick work and obstruction they are still not protecting the "stars" which the league needs in order to market the game.
If you ask me too many changes, but with the NHL's current situation I guess they'll throw it out there and hope people come back, otherwise we can kiss the League goodbye :conspire:
Ya that's right, you don't have to be near the puck in the icing race. I think it would look real cool if the puck is iced to one side of the rink, but the shortest path to the goal line happens to be on the other side of the rink. You could have two guys racing to the goal line, the offensive team wins the race, the icing is called off, then they have another race to the other side of the ice where the puck is. Ha!
As a defender you could have a situation where you think you can win the race to the goal line, but the puck and opponent are on the other side of the ice. If you lose the race your opponent could be all alone in your end with puck possession. what to do, what to do ......... Rolston gets the puck in the corner ... and he's got a breakaway ...
vBulletin® v3.6.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.