Less scoring = Bigger nets?

BBFan417 · Post by **BBFan417** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 pm

(CP) - Scoring is down from last season, which has the NHL's rules guru contemplating a change he never thought he'd consider.

"I know this is going to rock some traditionalists, and I can say this because I'm one of those, but I really think we've got to look long and hard at bigger nets," Colin Campbell, the NHL's director of hockey operations, said in an interview with The Canadian Press. That's the kind of thing that can start a revolt in the goalie fraternity.

"Cringe is one word," Dallas goalie Marty Turco said Tuesday after hearing about Campbell's view. "I think it's so far down the line of necessities. I don't think it should be an option, personally."

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?articleid=28 ... rvice=page

I personally think its retarded... less scoring make games tight which makes games exciting, we don't want to see games 15-14 wins or 30 - 5 blowouts, its just retarded. It will make it so snipers get at least a goal every night.

Post by **inSTAALed** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:18 pm

It would wreck havoc on the record books is what it would do.

BruceM · Post by **BruceM** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:50 pm

I think it's a bad idea. They say scoring is down from last year, which is to be expected. It's the normal trasition with the rule changes, players have had a year to adjust and it's showing. Scoring is down from last year but it's still up from the pre-lock out.

Sure, I like a 7-4 shootout but I also get just as much enjoyment out of a 2-1 game with end to action where both goalies are standing on their head and making acrobatic saves.

Defense is still part of hockey Mr. Campbell, it's not just about offense. We still have good hits, we still have plenty of goals, and we still have exciting hockey this year.

At the very least before you jump to this decision, give it a couple more season under the new look. I just think you're not giving it enough time.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:30 pm

I'm 100% against anything that will increase scoring. In fact, I'd like to see it go down to soccer level. No, there won't be the [heavy quotes] excitement [/heavy quotes] of goal after goal, but what's the point in scoring goals if they're basically given to you? Personally, I see high scoring in any sport like playing EHM with an all-star dream team... you'll finish the season with a nice 82-0-0 record, yes... but there was no challenge in getting there.

Oh well. I don't see it making it to the NHL, anyway. - They've already gone through this during the lockout, and it didn't go very far.

noctambulist · Post by **noctambulist** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:16 pm

I think that those in charge (Bettman, Campbell) of this great sport we love have an identity crisis. Hockey is not supposed to be a high scoring game like basketball. Monkeying the system to create higher scoring games only cheapens the game. I wish these people would stop worrying so much about the number of goals per game and focus more on promoting the game and developing a larger fan base. A good defensive battle can be just as exciting as a high scoring shoot out, sometimes more so.

Please, just realize what sport you are in charge of and work on making it a fun and enjoyable game to watch, not just higher scoring.

Post by **Minstrel** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:10 pm

They've already outlawed ties because of their perceived "image problem"

And I still hate the freakin shootout... so this makes "sense" given the people in charge of such things... I think we need a real hockey-conscious Commish, and my suggestion would be Scott Stevens actually (since Wayne is tied up with Phoenix and would have conflicts as would Mario). Someone who understands the game from an actual player's perspective... someone who understands where the game has been and where it should go, someone who doesn't want to boil everything down to over simplifications like "scoring = excitement" and "ties = bad foreign concepts nobody understands so should be done away with". No other sport has this kind of identity crisis... and hopefully this new competition commitee that has real NHL players on it will be able to prevent this travesty from occurring because I agree with Turco, "cringe is the word that comes to mind".

Post by **batdad** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:44 pm

Bigger nets will make scoring go up? Whup-de-doo, so will no obstruction, no red line, no icing on attempted passes, more power plays, no line changes on icing, delayed offside, the instigator rule, pretty tight ass hugging jerseys, putting teams in Atlanta, Carolina, San Jose, Nashville, and Puerto Rico, increasing the curve of the stick allowed, shrinking goalie equipment, and of course abolishing the position of goaltender completely. Not to mention the once floated idea of not allowing coaches on the bench or as the eye in the sky.
Whatever guys, as long as defence wins championships scoring will not increase that much...Coaches will find a way, and so will players to adjust.

Oh and I forgot...4x4 hockey and the larger ice surface. Can't wait for rocket propeller sticks and skates.

Post by **B. Stinson** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:44 pm

Here's what I'd ultimately like to see the NHL do:

Eliminate the current rulebook, and rebuild it with one style of play in mind. Because right now, it seems to me like they have a huge essay that they want to make changes to... but rather than eliminating the bad parts they don't want anymore, they're just throwing in new sentences and words. And right now, they're at the point where you can't even read the essay anymore, because it's so full of words and fragments and other junk.

For example: They wanted to get rid of ties. So rather than extending the OT period to allow more time to score(5 minutes is pretty lame to begin with), they kept it in place and simply threw a shootout into the mix.

Post by **Shadd666** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:13 am

It seems that we all agree that bigger nets is not a solution, and not a good thing for hockey...

Minty: you mention that it would be good to have a commish who really knows what hockey is (like an ancient player) and i totally agree with you on that one!

By the way, i don't really know what's the past of a guy like Bettman... Did he play hockey? If yes, to which level of play? If no, why the hell is he the NHL commish' ?!?

BruceM · Post by **BruceM** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:41 pm

Shadd666 wrote: By the way, i don't really know what's the past of a guy like Bettman... Did he play hockey? If yes, to which level of play? If no, why the hell is he the NHL commish' ?!?

I don't know if he played hockey as a kid, but I do know he was a basketball man before coming to the NHL. I believe he was deputy commish under David Stern. Not sure of the position, but I know he was NBA.

Post by **Minstrel** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 2:08 pm

Commisioner of any large sport is unfortunately viewed more as an executive position kind of like team owner, they are more likely business men/sports executives that make it into the position. And yes, Bettman got his training as a sports executive under Stern in the NBA and continues to try and run hockey like it's basketball which is a lionshare of the problem. I was really hoping that he'd be somehow forced out in the lockout but his getting the amount of changes executed he did along with getting the union to slit it's own throat he's only been emboldened about how the fan base is so strong and dedicated they'll put up with never ending amounts of unreasonable

and still come to games!!

So, let me roll out my next wave of crazy-assed ideas and see if I can't really "make my mark" on the sport! Nobody said the tradationalist owners would ever go for abolishing of ties but I did it! I changed every rink so there's a whole spot on each side the goalie can't play the puck! All me!! Etc.

But I totally agree with Stinty too... They've got a blueprint for a 50 story office tower but half way through the process they say "Let's add a 2000 car garage, so what if it's on the 30th floor, we'll make "car elevators" to get people up there... we just can't ignore the need for parking anymore."

Thundercleese · Post by **Thundercleese** » Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:12 pm

A strong commish can still impose his will on the owners in the best interests of the game. Bettman is the owner's little pet weasel. He's awful for the game and the sooner he's gone, the better. And yes, he was the second-in-command under David Stern in the NBA.

Meanwhile, the nets thing might be the worst idea I've ever heard. Maybe we can make pucks smaller too, so they'll be easier to slip through tiny cracks in the goalies position. Or maybe we should get rid of goalies entirely and leave it all up to the defense to create turnovers before the other team can score--you'd have to cross the blue line for it to count!