Five Things That Would Make the NHL Better

Another site I follow on a regular basis recently ran a month-long series of blogs, written by a different hockey journalist each day, the topic being "Five Ways I would improve the NHL."

Since nobody asked me to do it, I will tell you here.  Here are my five ways to improve the NHL:

1. Value each game the same in the Standings

Personally I am a fan of the shootout, and the extra point for an overtime or shootout win.  However, having some three-point games and some two-point games doesn't make sense to me.  Each game should be worth the same amount in the standings.

If I were in charge of the league, I would give three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime or shootout win, and one point for an OT/SO loss. 

Before you traditionalists out there scream about the lack of respect for records and the top teams of the past, let me tell you that I fully recognize that.  As the saying goes, however, that horse is already out of the barn, and was let out the day the three-point game was introduced. 

Having a .500 record used to be the benchmark for having a good season, but since the third point for an overtime and/or shootout loss was introduced that is no longer the case.  For instance, only six of 30 teams were below the .500 mark last season, compared with 12 teams in 1998-99—the last time all NHL games were worth the same. 

Parity is bountiful in the NHL.  hink of how much more exciting games will be down the stretch if there was a chance to gain three points on a rival.

2.  Fix the Schedule

The NHL should go to an 80-game schedule that breaks down as follows:

Five games against four divisional opponents (20 games)

Three games against 10 in-conference opponents (30 games)

Two games against the 15 out-of-conference opponents (30 games)

This format makes sense in a multitude of ways. 

First, in my opinion, every team should play in every arena each season.  Supporters in Los Angeles, Edmonton, Detroit and the other Western cities deserve to be able to see Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos every season—not once or twice every three years. 

Second, because the playoffs are conference-based, the teams should be playing more common opponents, rather than eight divisional games, where the strength of a team's division is a contributing factor to their conference placing. 

Third, divisional rivalries are, for many teams, the best-selling and most in-demand games.  Those rivalries are maintained without affecting the balance of competition, and in fact might be even accentuated because there are fewer of them on the schedule.   I for one would sacrifice two or three Toronto-Ottawa games in favor of more chances to see Iginla, Nash, and Kopitar.

3.  Its time to face it—hockey just might not work in some markets

There are some markets that can support teams that they don't have.  There are some markets that can't support the teams they do have.  It is time to fill the slots that would welcome a club and viably maintain it, regardless of territory. 

If you can have three NHL clubs in the New York City area, certainly Southern Ontario could support a second club.  Winnipeg, despite some arena issues, should be given another chance. 

After all, what good is a 20,000-seat arena in a sunshine state if they can only get 5,000 paying customers?  Is it not better to sell out a 16,000-seat arena every game? This is not to mention other potential US cities that are chomping at the bit to be a part of the NHL. 

4. The clubs need to do more sharing

The salary cap was one thing, but until the owners share more revenues, the gaps between the haves and the have-nots will keep increasing, and the lower-revenue teams will have more financial pressure to get to the salary floor. 

The high-revenue teams are reaping the benefits of the salary cap and pocketing the profits, while the lower revenue teams are struggling to be able to meet the strains of an ever-increasing salary floor. 

The players get a percentage of all league revenues, not a percentage of a club's revenues.  There is some revenue sharing, but until the league and its member clubs divide all revenues more equally, there will always be an uneven playing field. 

5.  Change two rules that don't make sense

First of all, touch icing is a factor in at least one major injury every year.  From Pat Peake to Kurtis Foster, there are stories all over the league of players that have been injured in the mosty-ineffective race to beat out an icing. 

The rule could be tweaked in many ways to avoid this race.  Automatic icing, with the discretion of the linesman to waive it off in certain situations—i.e. an obvious pass that was missed by its intended target, or a puck that could have been played by a defender—could be implemented. 

The league has too many star players to risk having one of them injured in a play that only results in the icing being waved off once a game, at the most.

Second, restricting the areas where the goaltenders can play the puck was an ineffective rule, and only serves to make for confusion with extraneous markings on the ice and more subjective decisions for referees to have to make. 

It is time to go back to where a goalie can play the puck wherever they wish, because it adds excitement to the game.  The goalies who are good with the puck can start a quick breakout for a rush the other way, while the ones who struggle can create scoring chances against them with turnovers and bungles.

These are five ways that the NHL can be improved, both on and off the ice.  Not all of them are easy fixes by any means, but the more of them that can be implemented the better off the league as a whole will be.