Re: DiamondDog's Proposed Rule Changes

Here's what I'd like to see ...

* Ice surface widened by just 5' to the NCAA size, 200 x 90

http://www.uvm.edu/athletics/mens_ho...ataglance.html

We lose only a bank of seats on one side, not an entire ring.
And it's not like the lower bowl is sold out these days ... and
in many rinks, there may not be a loss of seats at all.

* Eliminate the red line for power plays

* 1 point for a tie, shoot out (5 per side) for bonus point
in the regular season. Sudden death overtime in playoffs.

* No touch icing when sides are even. Touch-up on a man
advantage.

* Move the nets back just 1 foot, not 2 feet.

* Regulate goaltenders' equipment.

* Allow goalies to handle the puck ... but also let them get hit.

* And finally, not a rules issue but ... any game to ESPN,
no blackout, for $1 per match.

gld

I'm actually with ya on most of these Gary. The NHL would never go to
100' wide so we can take what they will give us - an extra 5' would at
least begin to open the clogging. I though will never go for shoot
outs - maybe when MLB does a Home Run hitting contest instead of a 10th
inning...maybe...but other than that ;-D .... I with ya on keeping the
nets sorta where they are... Definitely regulating goalie equipment.
You look at the old films where the equipment was next to nothing and
the game had more excitement - seeing Giguere in his Michelin Man
outfit in 2003 is to me the apogee of the Marshmellow Goalie Age.
Enough, already. As for the goalie handling the puck, he should be
protected in his crease and directly behind the net...anywhere else
he's fair game. A few years back we had a slew of injured goalies -
and it would happen again if there wasn't some protection.

As for your ESPN idea, you will eventually see PPV for single games,
probably less than College Football's $19.95 per game, but only in your
dreams will it be a buck. ;-D

Gary L. Dare wrote:
> Here's what I'd like to see ...
>
> * Ice surface widened by just 5' to the NCAA size, 200 x 90
>
> http://www.uvm.edu/athletics/mens_ho...ataglance.html
>
> We lose only a bank of seats on one side, not an entire ring.
> And it's not like the lower bowl is sold out these days ... and
> in many rinks, there may not be a loss of seats at all.
>
> * Eliminate the red line for power plays
>
> * 1 point for a tie, shoot out (5 per side) for bonus point
> in the regular season. Sudden death overtime in playoffs.
>
> * No touch icing when sides are even. Touch-up on a man
> advantage.
>
> * Move the nets back just 1 foot, not 2 feet.
>
> * Regulate goaltenders' equipment.
>
> * Allow goalies to handle the puck ... but also let them get hit.
>
> * And finally, not a rules issue but ... any game to ESPN,
> no blackout, for $1 per match.
>
> gld

Viceroy of Excellence wrote:

>As for your ESPN idea, you will eventually see PPV for single games,
>probably less than College Football's $19.95 per game, but only in your
>dreams will it be a buck. ;-D
>
>

PPV has bombed in the US, it works in Canada. Having the ESPN
network pay $1 to the NHL for each game they show, unlimited:
In case you haven't noticed, the NHL has committed to giving
away some Sunday games for free to NBC. It's supposed to
be a split of the profits but nobody really thinks anything
will be left after NBC tallies up all of its expenses.

gld

"Gary L. Dare" <gld_nospam@nospam.ripco.com> wrote in message
news:425DFC49.6020200@nospam.ripco.com...
> Viceroy of Excellence wrote:
>
>>As for your ESPN idea, you will eventually see PPV for single games,
>>probably less than College Football's $19.95 per game, but only in your
>>dreams will it be a buck. ;-D
>>
>
> PPV has bombed in the US, it works in Canada. Having the ESPN
> network pay $1 to the NHL for each game they show, unlimited:
> In case you haven't noticed, the NHL has committed to giving
> away some Sunday games for free to NBC. It's supposed to
> be a split of the profits but nobody really thinks anything
> will be left after NBC tallies up all of its expenses.
>
> gld
>

NHL hockey doesn`t have much to offer to expand the Potential PPV audience
beyond the hometown fans of the teams involved. The type of fan who doesn`t
care how their team wins, just so long as their team does win may watch, but
I doubt too many fans of other teams will take the time to pay to watch
mind-numbing trap action games between Minnesota and Anaheim ( Teams that
would have a hard time attracting any fans on free TV)

> I though will never go for shoot
> outs - maybe when MLB does a Home Run hitting contest instead of a 10th
> inning...maybe...but other than that ;-D ....

Not a great comparison. MLB has the balls to say that competitions must be
played to an outcome , and 100 percent of games will have a winner and
loser.
The NHL refuses to enforce such an idea. They should.

All games should have a winner and loser. If there is an unwillingness to
play "sudden death" to ensure a winner/loser outcome then I find it
acceptable to put in place an abbreviated method to determine a winner. If
players don't like shootouts, then perhaps they can choose from two
alternatives - flipping a coin or working harder in regulation play.