How We Can Bring Back the Real NHL

Don't care about hockey? Well, first off, that's a shame. And secondly, I'm about to launch into a complete overhaul of the sport to make it not only a better game but a sport that will draw back the casual fan of the 1990s and more.

After the lockout that erased the entire 2004-05 season, most casual fans left the sport leaving only die hards to embrace it upon its return in the fall of 2005. I was one of those die hards. We were sad to see so many people write the sport off. But at the same time we understood where they were coming from because the sport had been bogged down by stupid rules, boring teams, and low scoring affairs. All of these things will definitely push a crowd away.

But since the NHL came back three seasons ago we've seen new rules and new players that have re-energized the game. And while most of those rule changes helped the game (no more two line pass, stricter enforcement of penalties, smaller goalie equipment) there is still work to be done.

New young talent like Alexander Ovechkin, Evgeni Malkin, Rick Nash, Dion Phaneuf, Henrik Lundqvist, Patrick Kane, Jordan Toews, and so many, many more are making this game extremely fun to watch. Oh, and you may have heard of a guy named Sidney Crosby. He's kind of the new Gretzky or Lemieux.

Need some proof that these new kids are what's going to bring hockey back to the forefront of North American sport? Peep these short highlights.

Sidney Crosby


Alexander Ovechkin


Henrik Lundqvist


And this goal by Rick Nash might be the greatest goal I've ever seen:


I really enjoy the glee from the announcers on that Nash goal. Cracks me up every time.

Now all this talent is phenomenal but the game still needs some help to get it back to the popularity of yesteryear. Hockey was unbelievably solid in the 1960s through the early '70s and then became uber popular in the late '80s through the mid-'90s. Why was it so popular before? In my estimation it's a couple reasons. One is a lot of superb talent. Well, we're getting that back with the aforementioned players. The other big reason is exciting play. And by that I don't mean a lot of goals. But I do mean a lot of scoring chances.

We need drama. The reason soccer is so popular across the world is because each goal is so precious that when one is made it's generally a really beautiful display of skill that really means something to the outcome of the contest. This is what Gretzky and Lemieux and Messier and Leetch and Cam Neely and Patrick Roy and Steve Yzerman and all those guys brought. They brought incredible skill, intelligence and inevitably, drama to the sport. People like that. Oh, and the fights. People like fights.

But what are fights? They are tension and drama erupting into a confrontation that will rejuvanate a crowd and a team and intimidate the opposition. Hockey, aside from the batter in baseball, is the only sport where the players are always holding a weapon. You can really hurt someone with that thing. Hockey players don't fight to injure otherwise they could just as easily swing that stick at someone's head. No, it's to police the unwritten rules of the game. It's to intimidate the other team. It's to defend your teammate who's been picked on the whole night. When fights escalate into something that can really hurt the players and the game the referees step in and break it up and in bad cases dish out suspensions as they should. If fighting was punishable by more than a five minute major penalty there would be even more violence and the sport would suffer. Players would get more frustrated that they can't stick up for teammates. Ultimately you'd have what we have in the NBA right now: a league full of seemingly p*ssies that don't want to protect their teammates and police the unwritten rules. Now we know that's not true - NBA players would like to be able to step in when they need to and break up showdowns and make sure everyone on their team is respected. But with the rules David Stern has in place it creates worse fights from bottled up emotion and ridiculous suspensions for teammates that take one step off their bench in a kneejerk reaction to help a teammate in a fracas.

But I should not digress into the NBA.

We're here to fix hockey and so far I've shown that hockey needs these young players and fighting to help it get back to where it once was. The following are rule changes I feel need to be made in order to bring the greatest game on the planet back to where it should be.

Instigator Penalty - What this means is if a player starts a fight in the final five minutes of regulation or overtime that that player is given an extra two minute minor and a ten minute misconduct penalty as well as a one game suspension. I'm sorry, but how does fighting in those parts of the game differ than from any other part of the game? If you fight you get a five minute major and that's it. Get rid of the Instigator rule.

Goalie Trapezoid - This rule was instilled a few years ago and it was put in to keep the New Jersey Devils' goaltender, Marty Brodeur, from playing the puck too much and ruining offensive chances. Basically there are two angled lines from the end boards to the goal line that make a trapezoid behind the net. The goalie is only allowed to play the puck in that zone otherwise it's a delay of game penalty. This is just dumb. It was more fun before when the goalie could play the puck and if he screwed up had to scurry way back from the corner to his net. Also, the goalie had a rare chance to score a goal when the other team pulled their goalie. What they need to do is allow some forechecking by the offensive team on the goalie. Not plow into the goalie but be able to take the puck away without being called for an interference penalty. Goalies are too protected yet they have the most gear. Also, they need to give less leeway to goalies on where they can cover the puck and stop play. Some goalies cover it up way out of net. That should be a delay of game penalty as they are actually delaying the game.

Over the Glass penalty - There was a rule change after the lockout that said if you flip the puck out of the rink and it doesn't hit the glass first it's a delay of game penalty. That is dumb. They just need to go back to the way it used to be where discretion was involved. If a player obviously flips the puck out of the rink on purpose then that is a penalty. If the puck is bouncing or it's clearly a mistake in another way, just have a faceoff and move on.

Five Players Per Shootout - The shootout, in my mind, was a great idea. I hate ties. But I like the idea of the overtime loss. If you can push a team into extra time you deserve a point for that. But to get the full two points you need to win the game. If you can't do it in overtime then the shootout is a supremely fun way to decide a winner in the regular season (unlimited 20 minute overtimes in the playoffs is still perfect). Hey, if we love it so much in soccer, why not keep it for hockey? But right now the shootout is only three players aside. Let's bump that to five players and let's make it a rule that each player has to participate sans helmet. What's it for? Not only does he not need it at this point but it looks cool and old-timey!

Now, there are some other rules in place that some want to change that I think will detract from the game and make it worse. Here they are.

Icing - Right now when the puck is sent down the ice from behind the red line (the middle line) and it goes past the goal line and a defensive team touches it, this is deemed icing the puck and the faceoff occurs back at the other end of the ice in the guilty party's zone. The team that iced the puck is not allowed to change their lines as a sort of penalty for "delaying the game."

I like this rule. It's been around forever. So what the hell am I talking about? Well, many people want the NHL to change it so that the defensive team does not have to touch the puck to make it icing. All the puck has to do is cross the goal line. What this is does is it gets rid of the race. What I mean by this is that when the puck is iced the offensive team still has a chance to "un-ice" it by touching the puck before the defensive team. That means there's a race to the puck and this in itself is a touch of drama. The supporters of the no-touch icing say it will save players from injuries. I highly doubt the number of injuries saved by this will really amount to anything significant. This rule must remain as is.

Shorthanded Icing - This is when one team is on a power play and the other is on the penalty kill (5 on 4 or 4 on 3 hockey). For as long as there's been hockey (as far as I can remember) the rule has been if you're the penalty killing team you can legally ice the puck. You're down a man and you need to get that puck of your zone so the other team can't score. Why should you be penalized again for dumping the puck to the other end? I'm not sure what this rule change would accomplish.

Visors for All - Some people want every player to wear a visor on their helmet in the same way all hockey leagues below the pros are forced to wear cages on their helmets. I don't know about this. I realize it will save players from injuries but I say that these players are adults. They can choose how they want to play the game and if they want to endanger themselves in order to see better then let them. If they get a puck or stick to the face it's their fault. And if owners are worried about losing money on an injured player not playing because he didn't wear a visor then maybe they should tell him they'll give him a little more money if he wears it or fine him. These are men. Not boys. Let them wear what they want.

Goalie Equipment Smaller/Bigger Goals- Some people want goalie equipment to be scaled back and made smaller yet again. This change occurred after the lockout and I was ok with it. But we don't need to keep making goalie gear smaller. The reasoning is for more goals. This is the same reasoning for having slightly bigger nets. Both are dumb. There are plenty of goals being scored now. Like I said earlier, the NHL doesn't thrive on goal scoring, it thrives on scoring chances i.e. drama.

Now, even more important than rule changes are league-wide structural changes.

First off, get rid of the second referee. Right now there are two referees and two line officials. The second referee just gets in the way. But the way the NHL is set up, only the referee can call a penalty. This is stupid. Why not make it like the NFL where any official can call a penalty and then relay it to the referee so he can make the announcement? Boom, solved.

One structural change is actually being implemented next year and that is going back to the old schedule format. Since the lockout the NHL has instituted a division heavy schedule where each team plays their division rivals eight times a season. That's way too much. The NHL wanted to make the rivalries better and deeper but it only made the schedules more monotonous. Also, it means that certain teams in opposite conferences won't see each other for a couple of years depriving fans the chance to see stars in the other conference. This is no good especially if we're trying to market the awesome new talent mentioned above. So kudos to the NHL on that front.

However, bigger sweeping changes need to be made.

All the major sports leagues have expanded in the last 15 years. For hockey this has been detrimental, in my opinion. There are too many teams and that means too little talent per team. It also plays into the current (and almost defunct) schedule. With talent more localized to certain teams, it may be a while before you see your favorite team play a team with a lot of talent. You might go on a 10 game stretch where you see three of the same teams and one or two of them actually has talent. This dilutes the level of play and therefore makes the game more boring.

I say we contract four teams. Get it back down to where it was in the early '90s. Also, I think we need to move a few teams.

Much is debated about whether or not some of these newer southern based teams should be in the league. The people that argue for them will say that they bring in some good money and that the last three Stanley Cup champions have come from warm climate places (Tampa Bay, Carolina, Anaheim). Regardless of those cup wins only one of those teams has stayed at the same level of talent it was at the one season that it was good. Tampa and Carolina basically had fluke seasons. They played well those years but haven't been at that level any other year. Anaheim has been steadily good for the last decade almost.

The four teams that should be contracted completely are the Columbus Blue Jackets, Nashville Predators, Florida Panthers, and Tampa Bay Lightning. The state of Florida does not need hockey. No one in that state cares. For all the arguing of attendance in Tampa the response would be three-fold in any city in Canada and that includes a significant financial response as well.

On top of these contractions there should be a few teams that move. One is the Phoenix Coyotes. The Coyotes became a team when
they were moved from Winnipeg in 1996 when they were called the Jets. This should have never happened in the first place. Winnipeg absolutely adores hockey and they have a brand new arena. Move the Coyotes back to Winnipeg and rename them the Jets.

The next team to move should be the Carolina Hurricanes. They used to be the Hartford Whalers and they should become them again. The owner moved this team to North Carolina in 1997 after the Connecticut governor refused to reimburse the Whalers for up to $45 million in losses during the three years their new arena was to be built (it would have cost $147 million). Word on the street was that the Connecticut governor was holding out because had hopes of building a football stadium to lure the New England Patriots to Hartford which, of course, did not happen. The people of Connecticut, myself included, never wanted the Whalers to leave and felt that they got screwed. Build a new arena in Hartford and bring back the Whale.

The last team that needs to move is the Atlanta Thrashers. This one bugs me the most because Atlanta did originally have a team in the NHL (the Atlanta Flames before they moved to Calgary). However, Quebec sorely needs a team and they deserve one more than Atlanta. The Colorado Avalanche became a
team when they were moved from Quebec as the Quebec Nordiques in 1995. This move hurt the NHL but not as much as the previous two mentioned (Hartford & Winnipeg). The reason is because Denver is a very hockey-centric city and there deserved to be a team in Colorado anyway. I can live with the Avalanche there. They've also been a contender every year since the move except for the last two.

Finally, after the relocations and contractions we need to rename the divisions. With no more southeast teams that entire division wouldn't be justified anymore. So with all the changes what can you call these new divisions? Why not go back to the original names? Two conferences, four divisions. The Wales Conference (East) with the Adams and Patrick Divisions. And the Campbell Conference (West) with the Norris and Smythe Divisions.

These division names were changed to what we have now in 1993 by commissioner Gary Betteman (he's an entirely other article) to help non-hockey fans follow the sport. Here's my argument though: if they're not hockey fans then what do we care if they can follow the game or not?

The conference names are that of the trophies given out to the champions of each conference. Naming the conferences this way actually makes more sense than the NFL believe it or not. In the NFL there is the NFC (National Football Conference) and the AFC (American Football Conference). That's all well and good but the trophies each receives after winning the conference championship game are the George Halas trophy and Lamar Hunt trophy respectively. Why not call each conference the Halas Conference and the Hunt Conference? I think that would be awesome!

The new league structure would be as follows.

Wales Conference

Adams Division
Montreal Canadiens
Quebec Nordiques
Boston Bruins
Hartford Whalers
New York Rangers
New York Islanders
New Jersey Devils

Patrick Division
Toronto Maple Leafs
Ottawa Senators
Buffalo Sabres
Philadelphia Flyers
Washington Capitals
Pittsburgh Penguins

Campbell Conference

Norris Division
Detroit Red Wings
Winnipeg Jets
Minnesota Wild
Chicago Blackhawks
St. Louis Blues
Dallas Stars

Smythe Division
Edmonton Oilers
Vancouver Canucks
Calgary Flames
Colorado Avalanche
Los Angeles Kings
Anaheim Ducks
San Jose Sharks

There you go. Those are the new divisions. Now with less teams and different divisions you need a new schedule format. Here it is: six games played against each divisional opponent and four games against other conference opponents. Every team will play every non-conference opponent twice (once home and once away)...well, almost.

If you're in a seven team division (Adams and Smythe) you play nine of the non-conference teams twice and the other four once. If you're in a six team division you play 10 non-conference teams twice and two just once. The teams that only meet once a year will alternate home and home and back to back years and these match-ups will rotate every year so that the Devils aren't playing the Oilers once a year forever and so on. Sound confusing? It kind of is but it will create a better hockey atmosphere.

A couple more things before we close. ESPN must get back into the fold. They must become the premier American television platform for the NHL again. Versus and NBC should stay on and the rights to the playoffs and Stanley Cup Finals should be bid on just like the other major sports Finals are. But we need hockey on ESPN again. We need more Barry Melrose and Darren Pang. We need Gary Thorne and Bill Clement. And we need National Hockey Night for the sport to flourish in America again.

(And word from my friends at ESPN is that this will in fact happen in the next couple of years. So look out for that.)

Last but not least - jerseys. I don't know anyone that likes having the white jerseys worn on the road and the coloreds worn at home. It makes no sense and it looks ass backwards. If you're a Kings fan every single game you go to or watch is black versus white. It's boring. The point of the colored jerseys is so that crowds can see different colors in their arena each night a new team comes in. Make the switch back and it'll be better for everyone.

There are other minor things like disciplinary changes that could be made or left alone that I don't think change the game enough to warrant mentioning. And I like the idea of skipping the All-Star game every four years to allow players to play in the Olympics. Olympic hockey is one of my favorite sports to watch. I think many "non-fans" would agree with this.

I know this was long and I know many of you don't really care about hockey. But I do and I want to see the game flourish in America again. If you read this far there's a chance you agree with me. Now let's get these changes in place!

And you know what? Why not post a video of a really good hockey fight to make everyone's mouth water. It's brought to you buy none other than enforcer extraordinaire, Tie Domi! Oh, and the background music is pretty good too. Enjoy!