« Please Help | Main | CD REVIEW: G. LOVE & SPECIAL SAUCE- The Hustler »

Eric, look at the big picture. What's one of the biggest lures for a hockey fan? HITTING. Bone-crushing, teeth-shettering body checks. Everyone loves a good hit, and every time we see one, it leaves us yearning for the next.

4-on-4 hockey provides a hockey audience with absolutely no hitting. It's fun to watch for two of five minutes, but after ahilw, it becomes an ice skating competition, not a hockey game. Look at the OSHL games so far... 16-13 and 13-8 scores. Is that what we want for the NHL?

Hockey is a physical game. 4-on-4 hockey is not hockey... it's rollerball.

Well, one thing I think the OSHL games prove is there is such a thing as too much scoring, although I think most know that. However, whenever you read the "fix the NHL" articles, all they do is focus on more scoring. Scoring alone does not increase the entertainment value of the games and is being focused on way too much. Touch-up offsides is more important then a reduction in goaltender equipment IMO because it keeps the game going and can create circular back and forth rushes. It's the action itself that made the game boring, not the scoresheet. Rules and systems need to be worked on to make the game more offensive-minded, not just offensive looking on the scoreboard. To be honest, all sports go through cycles like this, and a change will probably just happen on it's own, but a few pushes certainly don't hurt. The top draft picks from the last couple of years are actually scoring much faster than those of the mid-late 90s and that bodes well for the sport. Also, while the Lightning are a good defensive team, they weren't the typical lock or trap team that's been winning the Cup lately, and if a season were to start soon I think you'd see a lot of teams pick up on more of a rush-style (the trend is always to mimic the winner). In other words - make a few tweaks to keep the flow going and don't just try and put some numbers up, numbers don't equal excitement.

Joe T.'s anecdotal notion that play in the OSHL bears a simulacrum to the real deal is quite prescient. Apparently, data gathered by the NHL also supports Joe's notion, however, it appears special interests (like the PC self-righteous media) is pushing the league to adopt policies contrary to the benefit of the game.

"The empirical findings on scoring and violence were the exact opposite. When accounting for team success and other location-specific factors, increases in team scoring, as measured by the previous season's goal total and the current season's goal-per-game average, were actually found to decrease attendance. It appears that fans might not be as interested in scoring as they are with winning and with seeing violence. The violence aspect, using fighting as a proxy, was found to be highly significant and positively related to attendance. Teams that fight more often tend to attract more paying customers."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_2_62/ai_100202310

On another note, one of Mr. Bettman's arguments for demanding a salary cap is to bring a better compettive balance to the NHL. However, this older piece from washingtonhockey.com shows that the empirical evidence, by comparing capped and non-capped leagues, does not bear this out.

http://www.washingtonhockey.com/200203/features/sc3.htm

I don't think anyone but Gary Bettman is actually trying to say competitive balance is effected by the current system. In the last 3 seasons we've seen 12 different Conference Finals teams. However, I don't think that was ever a main point to the cap argument. The simple fact is these players are being paid money that doesn't exist. You can attach blame to the owners, the system, some agents, the union, whatever. It does need to be fixed, and obviously some of the reasons being stated aren't necessarily ture, but it doesn't take away from the real financial trouble the league is in.

I also didn't mean to come off as "I don't want to see more scoring", I do want to see a little more, the early 90s were more fun that way, no doubt, but I just meant to say the action on ice, even when not scoring, is more important. People have seen exciting 1-0 games, it's just rare nowadays.

Tupper, do you have a blog? If not, get one. Please. Your degree of seriosity is boggling. I like it.

Eric, I have to disagree with your idea about OT. The occasional outlier with 5 OTs doesn't really prove anything. If the avergae OT takes on the order of 9 minutes, it is hard to justify changing the rules because of an occasional multi-period OT. Anyway, if you are viewing the game just for entertainment reasons, does who wins really matter that much? Why not leave when you need to?

I kind of like soccer in the World Cup but find it difficult to engage in an emotional way because the scoring is infrequent and a significant percentage of the scoring occurs on flukes, bad calls, dives, and corner kicks. But the topper is than having a hard fought game decided after extra time by five guys taking penalty shots. This is how we should determine the best team in the world?

I defer to the guys who know more about hockey on most things, but I think I'm the type of fan the NHL needs to attract and I assure you that penalty shots to decide games isn't the way to acheive that.

Thanks for signing in, .

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)