If I ran the NHL Part Tetris

By Pete McGrath

Moving from French to Russian this week on the name, I figured I should give some other countries besides French Canada some love. While I've covered cities, sweaters, and TV deals, I have not covered the actual on ice product. That's what I'll cover this time.

I have to tie up some loose ends though from my last post however. As I said last time, it is pivotal that the NHL expands the TV footprint of the game. One of the best ways to do this is to PUT THE GAMES ON TV!!!!! Currently, due to the leagues broadcast agreement with VS., local broadcasts cannot be shown, even if your club isn't on the Versus schedule. That twelve year old in D.C. with the Ovechkin poster on the wall needs to be able to see his favorite player on TV. Also, the league needs to be more proactive in cases like Chicago, when Bill Wirtz refused to broadcast home games when the United Center wasn't sold out. Which leads to my next point.

Last time I suggested a pay to play system for the Stanley Cup to ramp up the intensity on the ice. Also I suggested a promotional stunt of having the money on the ice for the presentation. That idea was pretty unpopular, but I think people missed the point. I also wanted owners to pay up at the beginning, with the thought process that the financial incentive to win will eliminate the league's shitty absentee owners. While maybe the ante up/pay to play idea isn't a winner, I think all leagues should adopt what I'll call the Wirtz-Sterling rule (named for Donald Sterling of LA Clippers fame.) The rule should be that if an owner has shown a pattern of poorly operating a franchise, then they should have to sell the team. I think ten-fifteen years is a fair judgement call in this case. The Blackhawks play in the second biggest market after Toronto, but they are an afterthought in that city because of the Wirtz family's poor ownership. A strong Chicago franchise is important for any league, and the NHL needs to be more proactive in the future.

Shitty owners aside, the league needs to fix the shcedule. Every club should play each other at least twice. After the Stanley Cup last year, the Wings-Penguins match up should be a hot ticket in Pittsburgh. However, there is not Wings-Pens game in Pittsburgh, which is stupid. The league shouldn't try to create division rivalries where there are none- (I have a tough time getting amped up for Wings-Blue Jackets six times a year) A schedule set up like the NBA's would be fine. As it stands now, the Wings only play the Leafs, Habs, Bruins and Rangers once a year. Those original six match ups deserve at least two games. Also, to pick up the intensity of some games, add more home and home series. Home and homes allows the hatred from the night before to still be fresh in a player's mind, boiling over to the next game creating a more intense match up. How cool would it be to see Wings-Habs home and home, for the fans and the players?

The league has made some positive rule changes to combat the boring New Jersey style trap of the 90s. To me, hockey is the ultimate players game. Not to say good coaching isn't necessary, but hockey coaches cannot call in the pitches, nor can they signal in or draw up set plays. The league was heading in a dangerous direction for a while, but I think they righted the ship with some key rule changes. Most importantly, they brought back the tag-up rule for offsides. I like the no line change rule after icing, and I never liked the two line pass rule. Clutching and grabbing had to go as well. I'm glad the league let the players who can skate play. But they also need to make sure the league doesn't lose it's toughness. Also, I must say the shootout is pretty cool. I thought it was stupid before they had it, but now I am converted. I would rather five shooters go than three, but it's a cool way to end a regular season game.

That being said, the league better not think about touching the sudden death/golden goal OT in the playoffs. There is nothing more intense that playoff hockey, and nothing puts me on the edge more than overtime in the playoffs. The best way to improve the regular season is to try get the intensity to that playoff level. Obviously unlimited sudden death OT is a stupid idea during the regular season, but why not get rid of the OT loss and make every shootout either 2 points or zero. That way clubs wouldn't sit back and play for the 1 point at the end of regulation, but would play hard for the win.

The league has to ease up on their fighting rules. I remember when it would be Wings-Leafs in the early 90s, and as much as I wanted to see Yzerman and Gilmour match up, I really wanted to see Domi and Probert drop the gloves. First of all, nobody gets up for popcorn during a fight. Fights are cool to watch (as the popularity of MMA and Ultimate Fighting shows). Hockey fights have always been much more honorable than other sport's fights- no one spiking anybody (Marcus Vick) and no sucker punches then running away (Carmelo Anthony). Hockey players fight face to face. Hockey fights also ratchet up the intensity of a game, and can give a club something to rally around. The Wings kicked off that Stanley cup run in 97 by beating the crap out of the Avs at Joe Louis in a late regular season game. I think fights are a necessary evil in a way as well. I do not want there to be bench clearing brawls every night, but a good fight to get the bad blood out is ok. I also believe that there would be less cheap shots if fights were legal, because players would eventually have to answer to an enforcer. Let the players police their own game- because while a millionaire isn't going to care about a fine, a punch in the face still hurts no matter how much money you're making. Long story short, Gordie Howe hat tricks are good for hockey.

The league should also go back to the three official system. With players being as big and fast as they are now, it gets crowded out there with four other skaters. Also, you have one official with a close view of the play not making the call, and the guy far away from the play calling a penalty. That really burns a hole in my panty hose. Perhaps give linesman a little more power, but please go back to three officials. Also, at certain times the league takes safety too far. It is a crime against all of my fashion principles that something as glorious as Kerry Fraser's hair is now underneath a helmet. In the NHL's Mount Rushmore of beautiful flowing manes of hair, Kerry Fraser's immovable bouffant helmet doo is a definite shoo in. For the record, I nominate Barry Melrose, Marc Crawford, and Mike Babcock to also be blow-dried, combed, and sprayed into stone. If they let him go helmetless however, the league should probably buy carbon credits to offset all the CO2 and make Kerry Fraser officiated games more environmentally friendly.

The league should also empower officials to call the diving penalty more often. While hockey will never be like soccer, where players fake injuries for calls all the time, I wouldn't mind seeing the occasional player get thrown into the box for a dive.

When it comes to goalies, I have some gripes with the rules. Let the goalies play the puck- that stupid trapezoid thing doesn't really do anything. Also, if goalies play the puck more, they often time create chances/goals by sending an awkward pass up the boards (think Osgood against the Sharks). Passing with goalie equipment is hard, so let goalies screw up and create scoring chances that way. I also hate the delay of game penalty for sending a puck over the glass. I find that rule arbitrary and stupid, and it's not like that was a problem in the league prior to the rule change.

As much as Sean Avery drives me up the wall, I thought his screen against Brodeur was hilarious and should remain legal. What was illegal about it? While annoying, he also can't see the puck behind him so he can't make a deflection, nor can he get out of the way of a shot, meaning it's not a perfect play. Also, that's when a defenceman on the Devils needs to get the sand out of his vagina and knock him on his ass. Once again, let the players police their own game. Brodeur should have cussed out his defencemen after that play because they should've taken care of the matter in front themselves.

One last thing, I firmly believe in the touch up icing rule. I realize it takes longer, and I realize that every other league the play is blown dead after the puck crosses the goal line. But that rule separates the men from the boys to me. Much like getting both feet down in the NHL, the longer three point line in the NBA, and wood bats in MLB, I think this is a rule that separates the amateurs from the pros. Plus when a game is close, seeing two players hustle down the ice going after the puck is fun to watch, and shows who wants it more.

That's it for now. Next time I'll cover some other stuff that I forgot.

Solving the Problems with Overtime Football

My beloved Fighting Irish lost today in overtime to Pittsburgh. I’m not making excuses, but the way Pitt won reminded me of one of the biggest problems with the college overtime format. Notre Dame missed a field goal on its possession in the fourth overtime, leaving Pitt needing only a field goal to win the game. Good thing for the Panthers; they get to start with the football inside realistic field goal range. Now, this turned out to not be a factor, as Shady McCoy reduced the field goal to a mere chip shot, but this does not excuse the problems with the college overtime system. How to handle overtime has always been one of the most debated issues in football. The college and professional ranks have taken diverging paths, with professional choosing a more traditional format and college going with a more out-of-the-box alignment. From my point-of-view, the college overtime is much closer to the way things should be, but at this point, nobody has gotten it right. The tough thing is that with so many facets factoring into the outcome of a football game; it is damn near impossible to integrate all of them into a condensed overtime period that is fair for both teams. The ideal overtime format is pretty obvious. Do it like every other sport, just play another 15-minute period. Whichever team leads at the end of those 15 minutes wins the game. Why does this seem too easy? Because it is. The issue with this format is that it puts too much strain on the players. Unlike other sports, every single play in a football game takes a tremendous toll on the players, and it’s really not fair to put both teams through an additional quarter of punishment, if it can be avoided. Players would never agree to this format, nor should they, so for all intents and purposes, it is not a viable option. Of the current techniques, the NFL format is the truest to the game, but it doesn’t give both teams an equal shot. Unless Marty Mornhinweg is involved, the outcome of the game generally rides on a coin flip. An argument can be made that the loser of the coin flip should be able to get a stop on defense, which is true, but in a regulation game, there would never be a scenario where one team would be on defense the entire time, with no opportunity to answer on offense. If the team on defense makes a stop, then the NFL’s overtime becomes perfect. Each team is forced to play offense, defense, and special teams; first team to score wins. Obviously, there is no way to guarantee a stop, and alas, the NFL overtime format is fatally flawed. The college overtime format is certainly more innovative, but it is far from perfect. As I alluded to earlier, the big problem with college overtime is that the offense gets the ball too close to the end zone. A team should not be rewarded with a field goal opportunity if they can’t move the ball. The idea of giving both teams an equal shot is well founded, but poorly executed. Starting at the 25-yard line cripples the defense and gives the offense a better parachute than an AIG executive. Without a huge negative play, it is nearly impossible for the defense to force a 3-and-out and the offense almost always has an opportunity for a makeable field goal. In the current system, offenses are encouraged to play conservatively and mediocrity is rewarded. The solution is simple, back the offense up 15 yards. It puts the offense out of field goal range and forces aggression on both sides of the ball. If the offense can’t make a first down, they are forced to either go for it on fourth down, or try an extremely difficult field goal. If the defense can stop the offense from converting a first down, they can get off the field and give possession back to their offense without allowing any points. Starting from the forty keeps the offense close enough to ensure sufficient scoring to end the game quickly, but gives the defense an opportunity to get off the field without forcing a turnover. This is the only format that ensures that offense, defense, and special teams all remain as integral cogs in deciding the football game. It does omit the punting/field position aspect of the game, but hey, nobody’s perfect. Honestly, I don’t think that the NFL will ever waver from its current format, but I do think that there is a chance for college to change. So write a letter to your local conference commissioner: Starting Overtime from the 40…Change We Can Believe In!

Wait, where have I heard that before….