NHL Tests New Net with Leafs

[tips09 0]

How about they focus on getting some games on TV over being on pay packages and leave shit alone? Hmmm, people not being able to watch a game without actually going to a game or paying for center ice MIGHT just help a little.

I think thats a major thing for newer markets. I know it bugs me that I live in BC and the only time I get to see my favorite team (Colorado) is when they play the Canucks. I also have never really liked the whole emphasis on scoring, 1 or 2 goal games are the best to watch.

[The_Franchise 0]

Here is what I would like to see so it can be faster and there would be more skill...

Shrink the teams, I would like 20 teams in my perfect world, make the talent more concentrated so there is more scoring

4on4, more room on the ice

bigger ice surface, again more room

smaller chesties for goalies, and mandate thigh rises for god sakes

That would make a more exciting game imo. Never will happen though, so whatever just my opinion don't bust your balls over it.

PS these new net shapes are dumb, since they kind of go up wouldnt the puck have a better chance of going out of play than just bouncing back into play for a scoring chance?

[TBLfan 25]

The majority of potential new fans aren't in cities with teams. They need television exposure, they don't need to change the game... All that does is annoy/hurt the current fans while not attracting new fans. The winter classic is the best thing to happen with the new NHL.

NHL network on BHN(my cable service) is part of a pay package, MLB channel is free for digital cable subscribers. In the US, you get a couple games on NBC and twice a week on VS(normally Pitt, WSH or BOS)... VS is not on every cable provider. Besides those avenues, if you aren't in a NHL market(and don't pay for center ice), you dont get to watch games... even then, they black out random home or away games for the hell of it.

[Chadd 916]

Here is what I would like to see so it can be faster and there would be more skill...

Shrink the teams, I would like 20 teams in my perfect world, make the talent more concentrated so there is more scoring

4on4, more room on the ice

bigger ice surface, again more room

smaller chesties for goalies, and mandate thigh rises for god sakes

That would make a more exciting game imo. Never will happen though, so whatever just my opinion don't bust your balls over it.

PS these new net shapes are dumb, since they kind of go up wouldnt the puck have a better chance of going out of play than just bouncing back into play for a scoring chance?

Actually, most of your changes would slow the game to a crawl and a 20 team league would mean that roughly ten cities would lose their teams. Nothing attracts fans like taking teams out of their cities. Bigger ice and 4 on 4 hockey would make the game utterly unwatchable for all but the most hardcore fan. We could probably take out the red and blue lines and turn it the rest of the way into roller hockey while we're at it, that sport has had huge success commercially.

[Law Goalie 147]

Is it too simple to suggest that goaltender equipment be reduced back the the point where it primarily protected the goaltender?

Already being done, as I said. Whitmore's mandate is to leave the pads (at a max of 11" by 38"), stick and gloves as the only advantages given to the goaltender, and reduce all other padding (chiefly the pants and C/A) to a minimum anatomical superimposition. Roly-poly goalies like Nabokov and Toskala keep their big pants; Ryan Miller's will drop in size by about 50%. Giguere's ridiculous neckline cheating may finally be eliminated.

This, I think will help the game more than simply increasing scoring. In fact, it could be argued that reducing the equipment will make goalies so much more agile that it'll almost be a saw-off in the end. It will, however, put the goalies in a more comprehensible proportion to the goal, which is something that any fan can appreciate.

[dw91 0]

as detailed in Law Goalie's post is the most sensible thing to do would be to cut the fat out of the goalies blocking area

[rebel96 0]

I definately prefer the oval-posts idea to an increase-the-size-of-the-nets idea. I think these days you see alot of shots hit the posts and even if a fraction go in the net then they've done their job without severely changing the game. This new shape might also cause some of the shots that hit the bars to rebound out in front for another scoring opportunity rather than ricochetting into the corner. I think it's also up to the equipment designers to develop protective equipment that is smaller but is as protective as equipment that is currently on the market.

Secret option E)

It's stupid but I'll share. And Gary Bettman will love it!!!

If we send all the goalies to the minors and bring up all the minor goalies then that will increase scoring in the NHL. It will also force all the minor league players to better themselves in order to score, thus ensuring that players entering the NHL through call ups will be that much better when they do get called up.

Hmmm....the whole salary thing might not go down too well though.

[mrusse01 0]

Here is what I would like to see so it can be faster and there would be more skill...

Shrink the teams, I would like 20 teams in my perfect world, make the talent more concentrated so there is more scoring

4on4, more room on the ice

bigger ice surface, again more room

smaller chesties for goalies, and mandate thigh rises for god sakes

That would make a more exciting game imo. Never will happen though, so whatever just my opinion don't bust your balls over it.

PS these new net shapes are dumb, since they kind of go up wouldnt the puck have a better chance of going out of play than just bouncing back into play for a scoring chance?

Actually, most of your changes would slow the game to a crawl and a 20 team league would mean that roughly ten cities would lose their teams. Nothing attracts fans like taking teams out of their cities. Bigger ice and 4 on 4 hockey would make the game utterly unwatchable for all but the most hardcore fan. We could probably take out the red and blue lines and turn it the rest of the way into roller hockey while we're at it, that sport has had huge success commercially.

4 on 4 is always pretty exciting whenever I see it in the NHL.

[eddyo57 0]

does the NHL really need that much scoring? The scoring is at a huge high this year but it is still within reason where its not dumb. do any true hockey fans really wanna start seeing 15 to 12 scores? is there anything wrong with a 1-1 game that goes into over time? you add more scoring to the game and soon enough guys won't even celebrate the goals anymore because they will be so easy to come by. and what would hockey be without the raising of the stick? (i'll tell you, it would become like basketball).

[stick9 890]

The majority of potential new fans aren't in cities with teams. They need television exposure, they don't need to change the game... All that does is annoy/hurt the current fans while not attracting new fans. The winter classic is the best thing to happen with the new NHL.

NHL network on BHN(my cable service) is part of a pay package, MLB channel is free for digital cable subscribers. In the US, you get a couple games on NBC and twice a week on VS(normally Pitt, WSH or BOS)... VS is not on every cable provider. Besides those avenues, if you aren't in a NHL market(and don't pay for center ice), you dont get to watch games... even then, they black out random home or away games for the hell of it.

NBC has to do a better job with varying the teams they broadcast. It's always one of the following teams - Rangers, Pens, Flyers, and Devils. It's even a bigger joy when they play each other. Things were so much better when ESPN2 had a different game on every night, sometimes two.

The NHL needs to stop apologizing for itself.

[Chadd 916]

Here is what I would like to see so it can be faster and there would be more skill...

Shrink the teams, I would like 20 teams in my perfect world, make the talent more concentrated so there is more scoring

4on4, more room on the ice

bigger ice surface, again more room

smaller chesties for goalies, and mandate thigh rises for god sakes

That would make a more exciting game imo. Never will happen though, so whatever just my opinion don't bust your balls over it.

PS these new net shapes are dumb, since they kind of go up wouldnt the puck have a better chance of going out of play than just bouncing back into play for a scoring chance?

Actually, most of your changes would slow the game to a crawl and a 20 team league would mean that roughly ten cities would lose their teams. Nothing attracts fans like taking teams out of their cities. Bigger ice and 4 on 4 hockey would make the game utterly unwatchable for all but the most hardcore fan. We could probably take out the red and blue lines and turn it the rest of the way into roller hockey while we're at it, that sport has had huge success commercially.

4 on 4 is always pretty exciting whenever I see it in the NHL.

I've watched a number of games where one of the teams was just running clock in OT, holding on for the shootout. The in-game 4 on 4 opportunities are usually pretty brief and not representative of what you would see if there was going to be 60 minutes of action.

The majority of potential new fans aren't in cities with teams. They need television exposure, they don't need to change the game... All that does is annoy/hurt the current fans while not attracting new fans. The winter classic is the best thing to happen with the new NHL.

NHL network on BHN(my cable service) is part of a pay package, MLB channel is free for digital cable subscribers. In the US, you get a couple games on NBC and twice a week on VS(normally Pitt, WSH or BOS)... VS is not on every cable provider. Besides those avenues, if you aren't in a NHL market(and don't pay for center ice), you dont get to watch games... even then, they black out random home or away games for the hell of it.

NBC has to do a better job with varying the teams they broadcast. It's always one of the following teams - Rangers, Pens, Flyers, and Devils. It's even a bigger joy when they play each other. Things were so much better when ESPN2 had a different game on every night, sometimes two.

The NHL needs to stop apologizing for itself.

I've seen Minnesota on VS four or five times this year. Who in the hell thought that was a good idea?

[Brokensticks 0]

The NHL needs to stop apologizing for itself.

This pretty much sums up the NHL the past 10 years or so, especially after the lockout.

[slacker76 3]

How about they focus on getting some games on TV over being on pay packages and leave shit alone? Hmmm, people not being able to watch a game without actually going to a game or paying for center ice MIGHT just help a little.

This makes a lot of sense. Your choices in the states are Fox Sports for games if you live in a market and Versus a couple nights a week. Pick up the NHL Network and you get the occasional Hockey Night in Canada feed on Saturday. Otherwise you're paying for Center Ice package. Trying to catch a hockey highlight on ESPN is few and far between.

If the NHL wants more fans then it better start televising more games on channels people get for free....or pump money into youth and adult hockey leagues in new and/or existing markets. In Pittsburgh, Reebok, Dicks Sporting Goods and Crosby have a promotion going where 600 kids through 18 rinks are getting all new gear for free. (http://penguins.nhl.com/team/app/?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=405613) Great marketing idea if the new kids start to play, and stick with it. They'll be buying more gear in no time. Not to mention watching and going to more games. Its growing a new generation of fans.

Gimmicks like making goals bigger or changing the shape of the goal take away from the game. It's a great game already (the best in my opinion), why change it. The goalie pad issue was addressed. Leave everything else alone.

[TBLfan 25]

Don't forget advertising the NHL only on tv broadcasts where you are ALREADY watching NHL hockey. Although I have recently seen a couple allstar game commercials on FX... but how about advertising the NHL during football games? Hmm, people that watch football might like hockey, odd concept. Nah, I'm sure that people that watch "van helsing" on FX would rather watch hockey... now they just have to figure out what channel hockey comes on.

[Gwyren 0]

How about they focus on getting some games on TV over being on pay packages and leave shit alone? Hmmm, people not being able to watch a game without actually going to a game or paying for center ice MIGHT just help a little.

Here here! <raises a beer to the suggestion>

[Tailboard Jockey 25]

I think that those oval goal posts will prevent just as many goals as they aid. A shot from an angle will most likely deflect out instead of in. It might even reduce the total number of goals. A team can focus more on clearing the slot, because perimeter shots will have less chance of scoring.

[Chadd 916]

I think that those oval goal posts will prevent just as many goals as they aid. A shot from an angle will most likely deflect out instead of in. It might even reduce the total number of goals. A team can focus more on clearing the slot, because perimeter shots will have less chance of scoring.

If the post is thinner(outer edge to inner edge), then fewer pucks will hit the post, resulting in more goals. The pucks that do hit the post may or may not deflect in, but that really isn't as relevant.

[DarkStar50 679]

I'm still trying to figure out how frozen rubber makes such a loud noise when it hits the goal post.

[Jason Harris 31]

Some of you guys have short memories.

Until five years ago, the NHL was known more for being run by purists having the attitude of "If it was good enough for Eddie Shore, it's good enough today." It wasn't until the lockout that the NHL developed enough political will to admit attendance was falling because scoring was down. It's one thing to have low scoring games with plenty of scoring chances, but it's somewhat boring to have 2-1 games with 27 shots between the teams. Unlike the other sports leagues, which tinker each offseason to make their product more entertaining, the NHL had backed itself into the corner of having to make all its changes at once.

Regarding TV exposure, that's not entirely up to the NHL. In 2005, ESPN declined to exercise its option to broadcast for the 2005-06 season at $60 million per year. The NHL could have entered into negotiations with ESPN to continue their partnership, but its likely the money would decreased, there would have been less games than previous seasons, and they might have been carried on ESPN's lesser channels (Classic and ESPNU). Versus offered more money, more games and regular nights -- although far less households (at least for EPSN and ESPN2). It may be a chicken and egg story, but the NHL needs to grow its popularity; if it does, larger TV exposure will come.

[Wolfpack_1986 154]

correct me if im wrong - but it looks like they just flattened the face of the post - which seems like it would have the opposite effect of what they want. maybe its just a funny camera angle?

with the way it currently looks, most shots would be even more likely to bounce back out towards the shooter.

that's what I thought... I think it's the camera angle, and the cross section look was a bit decieving.

the narrow part would have to face the shooter, not the flat part. If the flat part is seen when looking at the goal mouth head on, it would be counter productive.

[Powerfibers 8]

I think it is exciting when they hit the post and get denied. Sometimes, it is more exciting than the goal!

[dsjunior1388 81]

Why is scoring so exciting? if you can leave a game 5 minutes into a third because it's all ready decided, is that really a better game? Was yesterdays 10-2 drubbing by buffalo of Edmonton one of the greatest games in NHL history? Why isn't a great glove save as amazing as Tomas holmstrom taking four hacks at a puck in front of the net before he finally punches it through?

[steve66 45]

There are some things that shouldn't be changed and in my opinion, altering the nets it one of them. How many other sports change something so fundamental to the sport in an effort to pander to people who just aren't interested?

I know it's not necessarily applicable to all of the following examples as most already have a larger audience than the NHL, but the point i'm making is that the fans of said sports wouldn't stand for the following changes:

Soccer make the Nets bigger. Tennis make the net lower for better rallies, and higher serving percentage. Make the holes bigger in Golf. Shrink the baseball field to create more homeruns. Make bigger hoops in the NBA. The league needs to realise that some people will just never be fans. Don't go and punish people that always have and always will be fans!

Lastly, as a previous post mentioned, the 10-2 scoreline earlier in the week didn't instantly make that game a classic, or even more watchable, it's the action in between that plays the largest role in determining the quality of the game. I'd rather see a hard fought game, with great chances and stellar netminding that resulted in a 0-0 score at the end of regulation over a game with an artiifcially inflated scoreline, thanks to tweaks made to the net every and any day of the week!

[Jason Harris 31]

Make the holes bigger in Golf. Shrink the baseball field to create more homeruns. Make bigger hoops in the NBA.

Golf moves the placement of the pins in tournaments year-over-year; sometimes this is to make the course play tougher, but other times it's to get scores down.

Baseball shrunk the size of it second generation of stadiums to increase home runs, and then again with this last round of building. They also lowered the mound six inches in 1969 (I think), because scoring was down and they felt pitchers had too much of an advantage.

Basketball has talked about raising the basket to twelve feet to bring the game back to the shooters. They also adjusted their zone rules about a decade ago to try to increase scoring.

We all know football constantly tinkers with its rules.

The bottom line is hockey has always been much slower than the other sports to adapt to new styles of play or sizes/skills of players.

[steve66 45]

Make the holes bigger in Golf. Shrink the baseball field to create more homeruns. Make bigger hoops in the NBA.

Golf moves the placement of the pins in tournaments year-over-year; sometimes this is to make the course play tougher, but other times it's to get scores down.

Baseball shrunk the size of it second generation of stadiums to increase home runs, and then again with this last round of building. They also lowered the mound six inches in 1969 (I think), because scoring was down and they felt pitchers had too much of an advantage.

Basketball has talked about raising the basket to twelve feet to bring the game back to the shooters. They also adjusted their zone rules about a decade ago to try to increase scoring.

We all know football constantly tinkers with its rules.

The bottom line is hockey has always been much slower than the other sports to adapt to new styles of play or sizes/skills of players.

Golf has always moved the pins pretty much since the dawn of time when the game was invented, so it's not anything new to see the pin move. But if the target were to be bigger (ie make the hole bigger) that would be a bigger story and would meet with huge resistance, and it would never be done.

Admittedly i didn't know that tidbit regarding the pitchers mound, but i doubt they would institute a league wide shrinkage in fields.

the NHL has adjusted the various offside calls, and changed their zone sizes similar to what you point out with basketball, so even there. But again I don't think they'll ever change the size of the rim.

Football, I agree that always does tinker with rules.

True the NHL has been slow in adapting to the skill and size of the players, but the net size shouldn't be changed. Some periods in the history of the game, gola scoring is down, it happens. In order to make the game more exciting though, increasing the number of entries in the final boxscore is not the way to do it. It is to make the play between the goal more exciting. Changing the size of the ice to international dimensions would account for the size of todays players, and allow them to exhibit their skill.