Completely … I’m more than willing to go a season without the NHL (I love the Flames, and I love the Canadian teams in general, and I love hockey … but I hate the NHL, because it’s so screwed up) if it means a deal that will fix the League - ie, allow survival and competitive ability of the franchises that matter the most to the League, ie, those in traditional areas, and those that support the sport the most. If a few of the non-traditional cities are lost, that’s OK too ;)
I think contraction is necessary for this to be a GOOD league. To me, the problem with the NHL is that it’s a (relatively) small league, trying to be a big one. It’s trying to be something it’s not, and, surprise, it’s not working. If it was to admit that it’s not going to be able to compete with the NFL, NBA and MLB (which is fine), then it will be more than successful for its size. There is nothing wrong with being a smaller league. Players can take a huge cut in salary and still be the best-paid hockey players in the world (easily). I love using the CFL as an example. True, it’s had some tough times - but currently, it’s sticking to its roots and not trying to grow beyond its means. As a result, it is thriving in Canada.
I suggest a smaller League - 20 teams or so. Get out of the South, except for MAYBE LA and Dallas (I’m not sold at all on whether Dallas can support a team, but they seem to be doing alright … LA has shown they can support the Kings). So, there’s two teams. Keep Colorado, Detroit, Chicago, Boston, the Rangers, Philly, Minnesota, and either Pittsburgh or one other from the New York area (Islanders, Devils, Sabres). My personal choice would be the Sabres. I wouldn’t mind seeing a team in Seattle. Of course, keep the current 6 Canadian teams, and ideally add teams in Quebec City and Winnipeg again, and perhaps Hamilton.
That’s about 20 teams … easily two conferences of 10, four divisions of 5. Each team could play a 64-game schedule: 6 games against each divisional opponent, 4 games against each team in your conference’s other division, and 2 games against each team in the other conference.
6 or 7 teams from each conference could make the playoffs (6 teams: division winners get byes; 7 teams: conference champion gets a bye). Of course, series would still be 4/7.
This would increase the talent in the League, make each game more meaningful, tire the players out less (hence better hockey) and be good for the game all-around.
As for the game itself, dump the OT loss point, and DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT INTRODUCING A SHOOTOUT. I hate the shootout idea. It’s another gimmick to entice the non-hockey fan, in order to make an extra buck. A shootout gives NO justice to one of the most important concepts in hockey: teamwork. A goalie can have an off-night, but if his defence hangs in there, they can still come out with the win. However, if there’s a shootout, the goalie is hung out to dry, and his entire team is saddled with a loss.
I’m alright with 4-on-4 OT, but I’d rather they bring back the 5-on-5. How to make the two teams fight it out for a win, instead of settling for a tie? Make a win worth 3 points. Soccer did the change, and it worked out great. Tie is one point; loss (in OT or not) is 0 points.
For everyone who would complain about the old records for most points in a season being gypped, well, they really already are thanks to that lovely “OT loss” crap …
Keep the 2-line-pass offside. Move the nets back. Allow the goalie to play the puck!!! That’s part of the game!!! Make a crease that surrounds the net - and if the goalie plays the puck outside of that, he’s fair game to be hit. Simplify the offside rule (tag-up). And so on …
Geez … I hate the NHL. ;) It better improve itself. Still love the Flames … hate the NHL.