A Hockey Manifesto: A Blueprint for Growth (Part One of Five)

I am a hockey fan.  A littler over a dozen years ago I was mesmerized by a goaltender who steadfastly prevented a black disc from crossing a red line between iron pipes by frenetically throwing his body from side to side to the amazement of the fans, broadcasters and players.  After spending years of my life watching or playing sports on grass, blacktop and hardwood, I sat transfixed at an athlete who, on ice of all places, did everything short of leaping out of my television set to captivate my attention.  Dominik Hasek opened my teenage eyes to the world of Hockey and I have been hooked ever since.  From this perspective, I would like to offer a list of suggestions I hope will spark debate and maybe serve as the impetus for change.

Many analysts have been discussing the significance of the Olympic Gold Medal matchup and the effect it has had (or should have) on the National Hockey League.  Everyone agrees that the NHL needs to build on the momentum created by the Olympics, but most are left scratching their heads as to exactly how Commissioner Gary Bettman can accomplish this.  Fans have heard the usual grumblings: shorten the schedule, put more games in primetime, improve television exposure, contract underperforming teams.  These broad suggestions attempt to provide a magic potion that can cure all that ails the NHL in one dose.  In reality, some are impractical, others nonsensical and a few have elements that are helpful but by themselves fall short.

What follows are a few ideas that do not fall victim to the preceding criticism.  Any one of these changes will not be enough to “save” the sport, but when taken together, they provide a blueprint for growth.

At worst, it is just another echo. But at best, they can provide valuable talking points for the fans, mainstream media, and the decision making minds of the NHL.  Below is the first installment.

First – Innovation is a very good thing.  Two major headlines in the sports world are news that the National Football League is readying to modify their overtime procedures, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association is prepared to expand their Men’s Basketball Tournament by thirty-two schools.  Fans of both institutions are hotly divided on these issues and a common criticism is that if a certain object or event is “not broken,” then “don’t fix it.”  History, and not just the history of sport, has proven that to be a fallacy.

Time and again, society (and the world of sports) has grown from innovations designed to build upon existing practices.  A short list would include: the Shot Clock and Three Point Line (in both collegiate basketball and in the National Basketball Association), the NFL placing their goalposts at the back of the end zone (and the forward pass), Major League Baseball lowering the pitcher’s mound, instituting replay, inter-league play and the designated hitter.  Purists who argue not to “re-invent the wheel” have missed the boat.  If someone developed a tire that would never deteriorate, provide perfect traction and had a positive effect on the environment, we would laud and not chastise them. 

To that end, the NHL has made improvements.  However recently, the changes have been Newtonian, every action has an equal and opposite reaction: permit passing between the offensive zones and eliminate the two-line pass penalty, but restrict goalies from handling the puck outside an arbitrary trapezoid. 

An old criticism of the sport dealt with its pacing, an issue significantly improved upon by the elimination of the two-line pass penalty.  Now players may move the puck with more creativity, leading to spectacular moments where a forward can showcase his offensive flair.  Everybody wins, the players, who can play with more freedom and the fans, who are rewarded with exhilarating highlights.  Restricting the area where a goaltender may handle the puck seems to run contrary to that goal.

The purpose of the trapezoid eludes most casual fans who ultimately accept it for what it purports to do.  The NHL claims it exists to protect goaltenders from injury by limiting their exposure to impact hits by forwards flying down ice to claim the puck.  A commendable objective, but many will remember the time when a blue half circle protected goaltenders from contact.  This “crease” has been shrunk, and goaltenders are routinely harassed by opposing players with only serious interferences being penalized.  So this presents an open question to the NHL: Why have the trapezoid? 

The sport stands to benefit in almost every aspect by its removal.  Several current goaltenders have made names for themselves with their ability to handle the puck, including Martin Brodeur who is considered by many to be the greatest goaltender of all time.  Allowing goalies to play the puck without restriction opens up offensive possibilities as skillful goaltenders will be able to pass to opportunistic teammates for potential scores.  In the past, goalies received credit for assists, having been one of the players to pass the puck to the goal-scoring player.  This is a rarity under these new rules.  Eliminate the trapezoid, enhance the open style of play, the correlation is fairly simple.

A change in rules provides a simple innovation while a change in the playing surface could yield significant improvements.  International hockey is played on a larger rink than what we see our NHL clubs skate on.  For hockey fans, the neutral zone is almost eight feet longer and the rink itself is a little more than thirteen feet wider.  For casual fans, this means there is a lot more room to skate.  How do the dimensions impact the style of play: Significantly.

Increasing the dimensions will allow players to skate and pass with more creativity.  Skill players will be able to dazzle opponents and fans with regularity and the television cameras can capture it all.  The larger skating surface will also benefit defensive players.  A skilled defenseman can artfully neutralize an attacking player without resorting to simply pinning them against the boards. With more room on the ice, defenders will be forced to play more tactfully with greater emphasis placed on actual defense and not body work.

A slight tangent here: This was exactly one of the flaws Team USA had throughout the Olympic tournament.  Most defensemen get by on their ability to “out-physical” opponents.  Without naming names, most of the defenders on Team USA epitomized this style of play.  When the focus of your defense is to physically harass the opposition, skill forwards will take advantage of the empty space on the larger surface, as was clearly evident on the game winning goal by Sidney Crosby. (Check out the highlights to compare my description).

Though the end result of such a change would be a more engaging brand of hockey, the realists will point out that modifying rink sizes is impractical.  Before conceding hypocrisy, I will point out that this type of change is akin to implementing a three point line in the NBA, modifying the distance baseballs have to travel before leaving the ballpark, and throwing a football forward instead of running for daylight.  These are innovations that profoundly changed the way the sport is played, but did so in a manner that benefited both players and fans.  So is changing the dimensions of a hockey rink so preposterous as to not warrant any consideration? I say no.

I will admit now, looking over my notes, that this may be the most outlandish suggestion I have.  So to those of you reading (all two of you), I assure you I will return to my promise of providing effective and ready-to-implement solutions for the NHL.  The next installment will address how the NHL currently markets itself and will discuss ideas on how they can improve.

If you would like to join the discussion, or have opinions on what you have just read, or have suggestions for new pieces, comment below and I promise a response to each of you.

Thank you for your time and consideration.