Interesting CBA stuff

[tuzzitracks]

There is a petition circulating at www.savehockey.com/. Some people say it’s pointless, but I figure it can’t hurt. There’s also some other interesting stuff there. Cheers.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Welcome aboard tuzzitracks!

[blny]

Welcome aboard.

I have to take issue with a couple of things. First, hockey doesn't need to be "fixed." The NHL needs to be fixed. There's a big difference between the two. Some purists could argue that the NHL is barely hockey; that a game of shiny is more hockey than the NHL right now.

Second, player's salaries are inflated. The site brings up valid arguments with the use of some good quotes. "The league is only as strong as it's dumbest owner," or something to that affect. However, the way the site compares two athletes from other sports is a little off base.

Ricky Williams of the Dolphins is what the NFL deems a "star" player. Each team can take one salary from their books and keep it out of the Cap numbers. Also with 50-60 players on a given roster, and practice players, they aren't all living like Williams. It wouldn't surprise me if the average salary is less than that of the NHL. Contracts in the NFL are guaranteed either. Players can be cut/released at any time.

The NBA has some of the worst examples of overspending in pro sports. They survive as a league by the strength of apparel sales. Fan support for the NBA has dropped dramatically since MJ retired for the second time. Even his third comeback didn't help attendance much. There have been some interesting stories (some on TSN) in the last year that have discussed how shakey the footing of the NBA may be.

I think it's nice that some players have come forward to say that 75% of the league is overpaid. What are they doing about it. The fact doesn't stop them from cashing their cheques. Saku's comment hit the nail on the head IMO. Still, he's making $4-5 million per.

I have no issue with professional athletes making excellent money. They do work hard for it. However, when baseball players are pulling down $25 million per year, and NHL salaries hit $11 million, it's out of hand. However, for every guy pulling down that kind of money there are a dozen barely scraping by in the minors.

The biggest problem the NHL faces isn't salaries though. It's fan interest outside of Canada. I don't know what you do to sell the game to broadcasters. For the most part they've down lousy jobs presenting it, which I think is the main reason for low ratings. The times they have choosen to air "national" games is also poor. Three o'clock on a Saturday afternoon is ridiculous. Most people are not even home to watch. It deserves a prime time slot on a Friday/Saturday night. This would only interfere with the movie of the week.

I'm not sure what the best way to sell the game is. It doesn't require a sales pitch for me. Maybe it's the ice. Maybe fans outside of hockey can't get into it because of the ice. Come up with a gimmick using the ice then. Something cheesy that appeals to American drinkers. I dunno.

More goals might help. I say might, because the NFL isn't exactly a high scoring league and they draw big time. To their credit though, they've introduced a number of rules changes that have allowed for more offense. Whereas the NHL has basically failed in that area. The rules are there, but don't get called enough. The players don't get the message because the message stops getting sent halfway through a season.

In the end, the league has problems. Hockey doesn't.

[BadCompany]

BLNY said:

The biggest problem the NHL faces isn't salaries though. It's fan interest outside of Canada. I don't know what you do to sell the game to broadcasters.

It pains me to say, but I think NHL hockey is in serious trouble. Fan attendance is down, across the board (no matter how Betteman tries to spin it) and last year two teams went bankrupt, and a 3rd just avoided it by the skin of their teeth. There are no more new markets to expand into, and thus there is no salvation there. The much lauded American TV deal ends at the end of the year, and there is no new one on the horizon, and if one is negotiated, it will be for substantially less than the old one. Dozens of teams are for sale. The Salt Lake Surge didn't last much longer than the Gold Medal game and the current brand of play has lead to all time low records of fan interest. Its bad.

The absolute worst thing that can happen to hockey, is a strike or lockout. Never mind fan anger, which scared baseball so much, fan apathy will kill the sport. If the Atlanta Thrashers don't play, will anyone care? More importantly, will anyone go back to them, once they start playing again?

But will they "get" it? Will the owners and players see the precipice they are standing on, or will they continue to push and prod each other, falsely assuming they both have solid ground to stand on? Will they work together, or will they continue to work as adversaries? Do they see the danger signs, or do they only see dollar signs?

It won't be the money that kills NHL hockey. It will be the fans. And it will be because they just don't care anymore.

[Boston_Habs]

The economics need to be addressed, but so does the game itself. The whole idea of officials enforcing existing rules just isn't enough.

Everything should be on the table:

- settling ties with a shootout or granting points only for wins. No points for OT losses. No points for ties.

- full 2 minute PP for major stick infractions; score as often as you can.

- move the nets back to the pre "Gretzky-rule". It makes no sense to create more action BEHIND the net.

- get rid of the red line. Discussed ad nauseum, but it's the least intuitive rule in the game and it's just not clear that the game would be even more slowed down. It can't hurt - try it for a season.

- regulate goalie equipment, or even widen the nets by a few inches.

[blny]

Boston_Habs said:

The economics need to be addressed, but so does the game itself. The whole idea of officials enforcing existing rules just isn't enough.

Everything should be on the table:

- settling ties with a shootout or granting points only for wins. No points for OT losses. No points for ties.

- full 2 minute PP for major stick infractions; score as often as you can.

- move the nets back to the pre "Gretzky-rule". It makes no sense to create more action BEHIND the net.

- get rid of the red line. Discussed ad nauseum, but it's the least intuitive rule in the game and it's just not clear that the game would be even more slowed down. It can't hurt - try it for a season.

- regulate goalie equipment, or even widen the nets by a few inches.

A sure fire way to avoid as many OT's as were having (and to get them over with a win) is to institute the playoff system. Play till there is a winner. It works in the NBA. The thought of teams that play 20 OT games a year having a few marathon playoff-like games will force them to end it quick. The union won't go for it, but I think it's the best way.

I still don't like shootouts, no matter how exciting. The minute they get instituted for the regular season the closer we are to having it in the playoffs. The last thing I want is the Cup decided for by a gimmick. A shootout isn't hockey. It's like deciding an NBA game with a slam dunk contest.


I like the idea of returning to full powerplays. It's been 50 some odd years since the league created the rule we have now (because of the Habs). The only thing that scares me is having to watch a guaranteed two minutes of PP. There are some awful PP's out there, our's included.

Moving the nets back might work. It's hard to say. If done, I think a coinciding rule should be that goalies can't leave the crease to stop the puck behind the goal. Period.

I'm not sold on the whole redline thing. The trap would be even more prevalent than it is now. The threat of a floater being rewarded for floating will scare many teams in to hanging back all together. We have to encourage forechecking. Removing the redline doesn't do this IMO.

I've beed a proponent of increasing the size of the net for a couple of years. Goalie equipment, and goalies in general, have increased in size by at least 10%. I'm all for protection, but some of the gear is ridiculous. The stuff Garth Snow has done is a joke. That said I'm all for protection and as long as anyone can get a Synergy and blast the puck 100 MPH goalies deserve to be safe. Still, the fact remains that there is far less of the net to shoot at because of the physical size of goalies. Add their ever increasing athletic ability and you have one of, if not, the biggest reasons for the drop in goals. I propose an increase in net dimensions of 10%. The nets now are 4'x6'. That's an increase of 4" in height, and 6" in width. This would allow goalies to wear gear to withstand 100 mph shots and give shooters something to shoot at. It's also not a huge increase - certainly nothing you'd notice on air. It doesn't change the look, feel, and overall character of the game, and it allows for protection of goaltenders and increased offense. A win win in my book.

[PTH]

BLNY said:

I propose an increase in net dimensions of 10%. The nets now are 4'x6'. That's an increase of 4" in height, and 6" in width.

Just to nitpick, 10% of 4 feet would be 4.8 inches, and 10% of 6 feet would be 7.2 inches...

I'll post a more constructive reply to all of this thread once I have a minuet.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

PTH said:

Just to nitpick, 10% of 4 feet would be 4.8 inches, and 10% of 6 feet would be 7.2 inches...

I'll post a more constructive reply to all of this thread once I have a minuet.

Going for a spin on the dance floor before replying? I admire your style.

[seventeen]

I had to look at the title to this thread twice, thinking perhaps that it was another 'thin' book, right up there with "Italian War Heroes" (relax boys, I belong to that club so I'm allowed to say it), "Honesty at Enron", and "White House Wit".

I get bored with discussions about contracts in any sport. I'm much more concerned with what I see on the ice/field and does my team ever have a hope in Hades of winning. Those factors, unfortunately are greatly influenced by things like a CBA. Sigh. I think you've got most of it right, BC. If the Habs continously have losing seasons with no hope of ever improving because of budget issues, I will probably stop paying anything other than cursory attention, and that is a difficult thing to say. Will the actors in this play get it? Not right away, I believe.

[seventeen]

PTH said:

Just to nitpick, 10% of 4 feet would be 4.8 inches, and 10% of 6 feet would be 7.2 inches...

But what would it be in metric?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

PTH, I believe your minuet is up.

[seventeen]

mr said:

PTH, I believe your minuet is up.

Remember, it takes two to tango.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

seventeen said:

Remember, it takes two to tango.

I know it.

[blny]

PTH said:

Just to nitpick, 10% of 4 feet would be 4.8 inches, and 10% of 6 feet would be 7.2 inches...

I'll post a more constructive reply to all of this thread once I have a minuet.

You are right. My mind was on several things and my math failed me. Doh!

[blny]

mr said:

I know it.

If someone brings up tube snake boogie Im' outta here.

[cousin nark]

BLNY said:

I've beed a proponent of increasing the size of the net for a couple of years. Goalie equipment, and goalies in general, have increased in size by at least 10%.

I propose an increase in net dimensions of 10%. The nets now are 4'x6'. That's an increase of 4" in height, and 6" in width. This would allow goalies to wear gear to withstand 100 mph shots and give shooters something to shoot at. It's also not a huge increase - certainly nothing you'd notice on air. It doesn't change the look, feel, and overall character of the game, and it allows for protection of goaltenders and increased offense. A win win in my book.

I think that 10% might be a bit much. Not so much on the width, but more for the height. A crossbar that is 4.8 inches higher is going to really affect the shorter butterfly goaltenders. As far as the width goes, seeing how many shots hit the goalposts right now, adding the width of the goalpost (3 inches ?) on each side would be ok.

Just think of a goaltender that is hugging the post, and suddenly has to move right over to the other side. We're gonna see some goals scored then.
I like the idea

[BadCompany]

I’m not a big fan of removing the Red Line. It hasn’t worked in Europe, and if anything, its led to more trapping. It doesn’t eliminate the trap, it just moves it back a zone. If that. Witness the Czech Republic’s Ultimate Trap of a few years ago, which was so dull, that their own fans booed them during a World Championship, even though it won them Olympic, Junior, and World Championships gold.

Making the nets bigger might help as well, but then you get into all kinds of “well, its not really a record, because…” kind of debates. Stats are everything these days, and if you makes those too confusing, people, especially the kids, lose interest. They DO need to restrict equipment size though.

I also don’t think goalies should be prevented from leaving their creases. We are starting to see a lot of talented goalies coming up, who are extremely adept at handling the puck, and if anything, they’ll do more to break the trap than anything else. Especially if they can make good, quick outlet passes.

Here’s what I would do:

The easy changes

* Full penalties. Do the crime, pay the time. No more getting out on parole, before your court mandated sentence is up.

* Bring back touch-up off-sides. Less face-offs are a good thing, and it improves the flow of the game. The rule was eliminated because people felt offensive defensemen weren’t being developed, that there was no incentive to skate the puck in yourself, if you could just dump it every time. I don’t think that’s the case. Offensive defensemen will continue to develop just fine, thank you very much.

* Bring the nets back out to where they originally were. The idea was to get more “Gretzky like” plays developing behind the net. Well, news flash, there are no Gretzkys playing. Bring the nets back.

The moderate changes

* I like the overtime suggestion. Play until you win. Does anybody really understand the standings these days, with the OTL? Teams that lose in overtime, could make the playoffs ahead of teams that have more wins. It makes no sense. Keep the 4 on 4.

* Try to get more intra-division games. Montreal should play Toronto at least 7 times a year.

* Play more games. Huh? Don’t they already play enough?? Yes, they do. But if you want more intra-division games, without cutting intra-conference games, its what you are going to have to do. Montreal’s trips out West are always popular, nobody wants to cut those. Add 8 more games, with those 8 games against division opponents. 2 more games per division rival, bringing the total to 7-8 per opponent. Good way to build up a healthy hate.

* In keeping with the previous point, raise roster sizes to 25. 2 more players per team. More games + plus longer games means more injuries and the players aren’t going to go for that. Add 2 more jobs to the roster, to placate the NHLPA. A good bench coach will manage his team efficiently enough. Scotty Bowman used to send some of his players to Florida in the middle of the season, to give them a break, it can be done. Football has a billion guys on their roster, and baseball has a whack too. No reason it can’t be done with hockey as well. Most teams have guys in the minors making NHL salaries, why not bring them up?

* Penalize icings. Like Basketball, and their number of fouls. You get, say, 4 icings per period. After that, it’s a penalty. Teams probably average about 2 penalties a period (6 per game – maybe a little less, but the math works out better this way) meaning they play 16 minutes a period either at even strength, or on the powerplay. 4 icings per period means they can ice the puck once every 4 minutes. No reason a team should be icing it more than that. If my math isn’t good, then have somebody calculate the average number of icings per period, and subtract 1.

The difficult changes

* Get rid of the two referee system. It was supposed to result in better refereeing, it hasn’t happened. Tough to do, because the refs are unionized, and they won’t want to see half their union lose their jobs.

* Make the ice surface bigger. Maybe not Olympic size bigger, but bigger. The players are bigger, the equipment is bigger, if we keep the 2 refs, there are more people in the way, it just makes sense. Too late now, they say.

* Make the blue lines and red line wider. The Bobby Smith solution. If you double the size of the lines on the ice, it makes it easier to “straddle” the blueline and redline, resulting in less off-sides, less two-line passes, and less icings. Works better with a bigger rink.

* Change on the fly. Works well in beer leagues. If you can’t get to your bench while the play is going on, then tough bananas. If you are pinned in your own zone, and tired, the other team is more likely to score. Also eliminates the long delays between whistles and faceoffs, as coaches try to out-chess each other. If you get a mis-match on the ice, then that’s too bad for you (or good for you, depending).

[Disp]

-Tag up offsides. Definetly. Encourage forechecking. As it is now delayed offsides result in the team backing off into a defending stance.

-Benches on the opposite sides of the ice and centered.

-Regulate goalie equipment better. Roll back sizes and limits. Theres no reason for a catching mitt to be the size it is. Pads back to 10 inches. Try that before messing with the net dimensions.

-Move the net back. May allow more plays being made in scoring position and more randomness around the net. Have to try it and see.

-Goalies cannot play the puck behind the net. Not too sure if this would be a good idea. It may have a similar effect as removing the redline. Teams really rely on the goalie to make the play quite often. If he can't a situation may develop where teams back everyone up even more quickly. At the very least make him fair game if he goes out to play it.

-Refs call the game by the book.

-No full 2 minute pp. Call icings on the pk instead.

-Wave off two line passes if the defending team has a man on their side of center. Most of the two line passes called nowadays are not on the long bomb breakaway pass. It's simply on a play where the player receiving it still has a couple dmen in front of him. Whats the point in calling that? If guys were allowed to hit the defending blueline at full speed we'd get a lot more excitement and hopefully goalscoring. This way you eliminate the cherry picker floater and open up the neutral zone at the same time. May be difficult to call however.

[PTH]

seventeen said:

But what would it be in metric?

4.8 inches would be 12.288 cm
7.2 inches would be 18,432 cm

----

Overall, I think a lot of good (and not so good) ideas have been thrown out there.... but before doing any serious fiddling around, I think we at least have to see the current rules used and enforced properly. It's hard to tell how exciting might be with penalties called properly - why is it that the puck possesor can get what I call a "free tug" from every opposing player who is within a sticks reach ? If a player can't hit him or strip him of the puck, he shouldn't touch him.

Goalie equipment restrictions and full penalties would be fine by me.

BC's idea of more games and more players seems counter-intuitive to me - stars already seem too tired, and it's stars we go to see. Will Forsberg be able to put on a decent show if he's playing 30 minutes a night for more games ?

Most high-level players who've been able to get a break (often for health reasons) have put in excellent performances afterwards, just like guys who've played fewer games than normal. Neely comes to mind. The guys people pay money to see are already too tired to perform.

[BadCompany]

PTH said:

BC's idea of more games and more players seems counter-intuitive to me - stars already seem too tired, and it's stars we go to see. Will Forsberg be able to put on a decent show if he's playing 30 minutes a night for more games ?

Most high-level players who've been able to get a break (often for health reasons) have put in excellent performances afterwards, just like guys who've played fewer games than normal. Neely comes to mind. The guys people pay money to see are already too tired to perform.

I disagree. The “market the stars” approach comes from the NBA, with David Stern and his protégé Gary Betteman. In the NBA, they were able to market mega-stars like Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and so on. But those were special cases, and the NBA is in a mini-crisis right now, with no real mega-stars, and a whole lot of criminal stars. Look at Vince Carter, who was supposed to “save” the Raptors, but who has been unable to anything like that, and the Raptors are victims to steadily declining attendance. If they don’t like the one guy the team is trying to sell, why would they buy the tickets?

The NHL is trying the same thing, and its doomed to fail, in my opinion. It ALREADY has failed, in my opinion. They might have been able to pull it off with Gretzky and Lemieux, but there are no more Gretzky and Lemieuxs, and the next generation hasn’t been able to carry that torch. Nobody can draw like they do, and I think the NHL should stop trying to push that idea.

Look at all the teams with “stars” who can’t draw. Anaheim had Paul Kariya AND Teemu Selanne, and had mediocre attendance. Washington has been a disaster with Jaromir Jagr. Atlanta has (or had) two of the most exciting, dynamic, fun-to-watch players the NHL has seen in years, in Kovalchuk and Heatley, and they couldn’t draw flies to a manure pasture. People in Nashville just do not pay money to go see Peter Forsberg. They just don’t. Regardless of whether or not Joe Thornton is playing, attendance in Boston is abysmal. “Names” do not draw in the NHL.

What does draw, though. Is rivalries. Teams draw. When the Canadiens go on their Western swings, people don’t show up in droves, wearing their Canadiens sweaters because they are eager to see Mike Ribeiro. Same thing with Original Six mathups. Montreal-Toronto games are always circus-like atmospheres, and its not because people in La Belle Province want to see Mats Sundin, or the fine folk of the Center of the Universe miss watching Yanic Perreault skate around. Its because of the rivalry, and the history of the two teams, versus each other. Colorado fans hate Detroit, and Detroit fans hate Colorado, and it all stems from Claude Lemieux smashing in Kris Draper’s face. Lemieux doesn’t play for Colorado, but the rivalry is still there, and fans still pay to see that. The “player” is gone, but the “team” is still going. Honestly now, did you hate/love Michel Goulet because he was a great player, or because he was involved in the infamous Battles of Quebec? I hate the Nordiques, with a passion, but I would love to see them back in the league, regardless of whether or not Peter Stastny laces ‘em up.

It’s the rivalries that draw the fans, not the players. Give me fierce, ugly, vicious wars on ice, and I’ll give you a sold out stadium. Doesn’t mean they have to be goon affairs, but the players really have to care about beating the other team (as they do in the playoffs) because they sincerely hate the other team. That’s not going to happen when you only play them once or twice a year. When you want to beat someone, when you really want to beat someone, you are going to skate a little harder, hit a little harder, concentrate a little harder. And that makes for great hockey.

The NHL needs to make their regular season games mean something. They have to give fans a reason to go to games, to expect a little passion and excitement. Rick Nash is a great player, a super-star in the making, but nobody outside of Columbus really cares. People in Buffalo are not going to show up just to see him.

When you market the stars, you create unrealistic expectations. People in Washington (or at least the owner) thought Jagr was going to electrify the building, turn people onto hockey and save the franchise. Didn’t happen, because when you rely on one person to save you, you are held hostage to that person’s whims and behaviors. They can demand more money, because you told them you need them, and that you can’t survive without them. Everything has to be perfect for them, because, hey, they’re the stars, without whom the NHL couldn’t survive. It’s the cult of “me” and we see it in the NBA, and its creeping into the NHL. Its not saving destitute franchises, and its causing more problems than its worth.

I say more games, equals more rivalries. So what if the “stars” are tired, they aren’t saving any small market teams anyways. A good coach can work around that anyways, especially with more players available to him. Create more nights like a Toronto-Montreal night, or Boston-Montreal night, and forget about trying to get people to go see Marian Gaborik, “because he is a star.” Nobody cares. What they do care about, is beating the Big Bad Bruins, or crushing the hated Maple Leafs. THAT’S what matters to Montreal fans. Not whether or not Mats Sundin or Joe Thornton will be playing that night…

[Montrealer]

I just want to applaud everyone for not throwing out contraction as a "solution" to the league's problems. I see a lot of excellent ideas, many that I support.

-Bigger goal nets
-No red line for two-line offsides (only for icing)
-Minor penalities, time to be served in full
-Touch-up offsides

The obvious point in all of this is that the NHL had better do something and quick.

[Boston_Habs]

You can add contraction to the list as well. To BC's point about nurturing rivalries and more divisional and conference play, a 24-team league would be so much better:

Montreal Chicago
Toronto Minnesota
Boston St. Louis
Detroit Columbus
Buffalo Alberta
Pittsburgh Milwaukee (moved)

NY Rangers Los Angeles
NY Islanders San Jose
New Jersey Vancouver
Philadelphia Colorado
Washington Dallas
Florida Phoenix

You break up the schedule into strictly divisional play, or inter-conference play. For example, the first 10 games of the year are strictly within the division. Then you play the other conference team for a 6-game stretch, the back to your division, and so forth.

Bottom line? More predictable schedule, more divisional and conference play, more natural rivalries..... and no teams in the Southeast US, which is just a wasteland for hockey, IMO.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Contraction would also increase the talent level on the remaining teams, and not just as regards players, but coaching staffs as well. The quality of refereeing should improve too.

Let's get small.

[Montrealer]

mr said:

Contraction would also increase the talent level on the remaining teams, and not just as regards players, but coaching staffs as well. The quality of refereeing should improve too.

Let's get small.

So why not have two super-teams? In fact, let's get rid of all sports so we can super-concentrate the best athletes in the world into one sport! Imagine those two teams, they would be incredible!

Then we can put it on TV so everyone can enjoy.

[Montrealer]

Boston_Habs said:

Please delete above post.

((Misunderstood, thought he was refering to my post, sorry Boston_Habs))

Oh, and you should note that Florida in the extreme southeast portion of the United States. Might want to take that under advisement when you make sweeping generalities about geography and then include a team in Florida in your reduced league.

Contraction reminds me of that instant-half-coffee crap. Half real coffee, half chicory. Yummy!

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Montrealer said:

So why not have two super-teams? In fact, let's get rid of all sports so we can super-concentrate the best athletes in the world into one sport! Imagine those two teams, they would be incredible!

Then we can put it on TV so everyone can enjoy.

I don't like that idea. It's too much of a good thing and would kill the game.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Boston_Habs said:

Please delete above post.

And why should I?

Boston_Habs was refering to a duplicate of his own post, which was removed.

[Montrealer]

mr said:

And why should I?

Boston_Habs was refering to a duplicate of his own post, which was removed.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. B. I've edited my reply in turn.

[Boston_Habs]

Montrealer said:

And why should I?

Oh, and you should note that Florida in the extreme southeast portion of the United States. Might want to take that under advisement when you make sweeping generalities about geography and then include a team in Florida in your reduced league.

Contraction reminds me of that instant-half-coffee crap. Half real coffee, half chicory. Yummy!

Sorry - by "above post" I was referring to my post which was mistakenly entered (and subsequently deleted).

I think hockey can work in Florida, but only in Miami. That leaves a big hole between Washington and Florida, but I just think hockey should have been more thoughtful about the markets it expanded into instead of just filling geographic holes.

The league should have gone after smaller markets that could really embrace the sport: Milwaukee, Portland (OR), I think Columbus is a good market for the NHL.

But Anaheim, Tampa, Atlanta, Nashville, Phoenix, Carolina?...... YUCK.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Montrealer said:

Contraction reminds me of that instant-half-coffee crap. Half real coffee, half chicory. Yummy!

I think of it as espresso.