NHL/PA Discussing earlier season start

[Golden_Jet]

Not sure if happens, as some US based teams have often pushed back on starting earlier, with some preferring later starts in the past.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Need to do something about the pretty bad lack of parity and it being functionally way too hard to rebuild/retool with the restrictive systems in place (I.e. low and hard salary cap, uncompetitive free agency rules, the draft lottery being way too powerful combined with it being entirely luck based) compared to the other major leagues.

There are 9 teams with playoff droughts of 4+ seasons, that is *really* bad, regardless of how much blame you want to give to the franchises themselves (and either way, you have to admit it's WAY harder to rebuild in this sport) Baseball, a league with no cap at all and a complete crapshoot of a draft, only has 6 teams with 4+ year droughts. NFL and NBA only 4 teams each, with far less restrictive cap options and less powerful drafting systems...resulting in far fewer teams/fanbases in bleak, seemingly eternally painful situations

Only having those 16 spots occupied by merely 23 teams over 4 seasons is not a good thing, particularly when the league's models are based on gate revenues and you need to encourage people to pay to come to the games.

The NHL is the only league in the world the caters to the needs of its "small markets" (understanding that the context of what a small market is in hockey is different from what a small market may mean in different sports) ahead of its juggernauts. I fully understand why this is the case, as the growth the game has seen down south is astonishing, however at some point you need to reassess things to make sure the system is working for everyone, because it really isn't right now.

I'm not just complaining for the sake of complaining, I have some ideas myself, but you didn't ask so I'm not going to get into all of that lol.

I'd be interested in hearing your ideas so go ahead man.

I think there's some issues with parity for sure. The point system can make it seem like a lot of teams are closer than they really are, for sure. A 2-point system lets teams be satisfied with OTL's and hides a lot of deficiencies. I also think rebuilds take a lot longer in the NHL because kids are drafted at 18 years old and it takes a long time for them to be impact players.

However, a lot of teams are stuck because they keep making stupid decisions and I don't think that should be excused or used as proof-positive that it's hard to rebuild. There's also ebbs and flows in hockey and personally I like that some teams get their 5 or so year stretch of being an elite team. Things would feel to random and chaotic if most of the 16 teams in the playoffs were drastically different in any given two year span.

You have to have ownership that understand the league and is willing to spend. You have to have a front office that doesn't cripple themselves with stupid UFA contracts and bad trades. You have to have a great pro-scouting department to understand what players and what type of players are effective in winning games. You have to get lucky with draft picks and make sure you are developing them the right way. It's hard but it isn't impossible.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I think there's some issues with parity for sure. The point system can make it seem like a lot of teams are closer than they really are, for sure. A 2-point system lets teams be satisfied with OTL's and hides a lot of deficiencies. I also think rebuilds take a lot longer in the NHL because kids are drafted at 18 years old and it takes a long time for them to be impact players.

This is just an aside, but I see lots of people say it should be 3 points for a regulation win. And personally I agree.

But the current NHL system exists for a reason - because it makes it seem like more teams have a winning record.

Let's take (just looking at the standings)... Pittsburgh. They had a final record of 38-32-12, with 88 points. It doesn't look too bad though, right? They won more games than they lost at least.

Except they didn't. Those 12 games were losses. Their record was 38-44. Doesn't look so good anymore does it.

 

[StreetHawk]

This is just an aside, but I see lots of people say it should be 3 points for a regulation win. And personally I agree.

But the current NHL system exists for a reason - because it makes it seem like more teams have a winning record.

Let's take (just looking at the standings)... Pittsburgh. They had a final record of 38-32-12, with 88 points. It doesn't look too bad though, right? They won more games than they lost at least.

Except they didn't. Those 12 games were losses. Their record was 38-44. Doesn't look so good anymore does it.

I kind of look at it as clear wins/losses and the rest are basically ties.

For real 0.500 hockey, I would add all of the league's OTL or extra points and divide by 32 teams. Quick calculation it was 262 OTLs, thus 8.1875 per club. Thus, true 0.500 is really 82 + 8 for 90 points. Thus, in your example, Pitt, Phi, Min, Buf were really under 0.500 despite having over 82 points.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

I kind of look at it as clear wins/losses and the rest are basically ties.

For real 0.500 hockey, I would add all of the league's OTL or extra points and divide by 32 teams. Quick calculation it was 262 OTLs, thus 8.1875 per club. Thus, true 0.500 is really 82 + 8 for 90 points. Thus, in your example, Pitt, Phi, Min, Buf were really under 0.500 despite having over 82 points.

This is just an aside, but I see lots of people say it should be 3 points for a regulation win. And personally I agree.

But the current NHL system exists for a reason - because it makes it seem like more teams have a winning record.

Let's take (just looking at the standings)... Pittsburgh. They had a final record of 38-32-12, with 88 points. It doesn't look too bad though, right? They won more games than they lost at least.

Except they didn't. Those 12 games were losses. Their record was 38-44. Doesn't look so good anymore does it.

I think they should just do this system (which they wouldn’t because OTL promotes mediocrity, which is biggest reason why I hate it)
Regulation/Overtime Win: 2 points
Shootout Win: 1 point

This makes winning in OT a priority especially late in the season for playoff spots. I’ll also admit that OT would have to be 4v4 if this was a possibility. Don’t think 3v3 would be a fair way to decide it.

 

[Yukon Joe]

I think they should just do this system (which they wouldn’t because OTL promotes mediocrity, which is biggest reason why I hate it)
Regulation/Overtime Win: 2 points
Shootout Win: 1 point

This makes winning in OT a priority especially late in the season for playoff spots. I’ll also admit that OT would have to be 4v4 if this was a possibility. Don’t think 3v3 would be a fair way to decide it.

It's not that it promotes mediocrity - it's that it gives the illusion of success. If you break it down to "win percentage" it gives the majority of teams a winning record - which is obviously statistically impossible.

 

[StreetHawk]

It's not that it promotes mediocrity - it's that it gives the illusion of success. If you break it down to "win percentage" it gives the majority of teams a winning record - which is obviously statistically impossible.

Based on last season, the NHL added an extra 262 points to the system. I believe it is 1260 games in the season. 2520 points should be awarded. But, it ended up being 2782 points instead.

A team can't get more than 164, but true 0.500 was 90 points not 82.

It's how the NHL operates. Never a fan of this system because it does NOT "math".

 

[WaW]

I'd be interested in hearing your ideas so go ahead man.

I think there's some issues with parity for sure. The point system can make it seem like a lot of teams are closer than they really are, for sure. A 2-point system lets teams be satisfied with OTL's and hides a lot of deficiencies. I also think rebuilds take a lot longer in the NHL because kids are drafted at 18 years old and it takes a long time for them to be impact players.

However, a lot of teams are stuck because they keep making stupid decisions and I don't think that should be excused or used as proof-positive that it's hard to rebuild. There's also ebbs and flows in hockey and personally I like that some teams get their 5 or so year stretch of being an elite team. Things would feel to random and chaotic if most of the 16 teams in the playoffs were drastically different in any given two year span.

You have to have ownership that understand the league and is willing to spend. You have to have a front office that doesn't cripple themselves with stupid UFA contracts and bad trades. You have to have a great pro-scouting department to understand what players and what type of players are effective in winning games. You have to get lucky with draft picks and make sure you are developing them the right way. It's hard but it isn't impossible.

I actually agree with your main point in each paragraph there. 3 point system is my preference as well, then on your points about teams making bad decisions and owners needing to spend, you're right about both of those thing, but the problem is that pragmatically, it's not really feasible to *avoid* making bad decisions, and the bad decisions in the NHL are so much more punishing than in other leagues because of the fact that hard cap is so restrictive. As for owners spending, I have no doubt whatsoever that Pegula in Buffalo and Illitch in Detroit for example, would absolutely spend to get out of their godawful situations right now. I do think alot of owners would spend a bit more money if they could, because they're arguably losing more money by being perpetually outside the playoffs because people won't spend as much on tickets, nor are they getting playoff revenue.


These are my core ideas I was referring to:

1. Introduce some sort of luxury tax system similar to the NBA. Totally unoriginal, I know, but it doesn't have to be EXACTLY like the NBA system, you could tweak it, and would help teams like Anaheim and Detroit who got stuck largely on the back of rather garbage luck in recent years, to have another route out of their awful situations, if they're willing to spend for it.

2. Reform the team-player rights and UFA rules. 7 years of control is too much, and the 8 year retention rule is a bad rule. These things are also the primary drivers of why free agency is so boring and uneventful. I'd say lower it to 5 or 6 years of control, and no term length retention bonuses, however it can be combined with a cap system overhaul to give a player retention higher contract limit like in the NBA.

3. Change the league format. Instead of 82 regular season games, have 68 games, and make the final 14 games into 4 different tournaments that decide everything:

Group 1 - Top 4 teams in each conference form an 8 team "president's trophy" group and compete for that + playoff seeding in a 14 game, home + away round robin (that's the other 7 teams twice each...and those 14 games + the first 68 = 82). They all qualify for the playoffs and get the high seeds

Teams 5-12 in the East and Teams 5-12 in the West are the next two groups, they play for the final 4 playoff positions in each conference. Same 14 game round robin format as above.

Bottom 8 teams in the league play a 14 game home + away round robin for draft position. Tournament standings = first 8 picks of the draft order. This abolishes tanking and the overpowered luck factor of the draft lottery.

This way you open up playoff opportunity to more teams by creating more playoff races, and give every single team and fanbase in the league actual important, meaningful hockey to end the year

 

[x Tame Impala]

I actually agree with your main point in each paragraph there. 3 point system is my preference as well, then on your points about teams making bad decisions and owners needing to spend, you're right about both of those thing, but the problem is that pragmatically, it's not really feasible to *avoid* making bad decisions, and the bad decisions in the NHL are so much more punishing than in other leagues because of the fact that hard cap is so restrictive. As for owners spending, I have no doubt whatsoever that Pegula in Buffalo and Illitch in Detroit for example, would absolutely spend to get out of their godawful situations right now. I do think alot of owners would spend a bit more money if they could, because they're arguably losing more money by being perpetually outside the playoffs because people won't spend as much on tickets, nor are they getting playoff revenue.


These are my core ideas I was referring to:

1. Introduce some sort of luxury tax system similar to the NBA. Totally unoriginal, I know, but it doesn't have to be EXACTLY like the NBA system, you could tweak it, and would help teams like Anaheim and Detroit who got stuck largely on the back of rather garbage luck in recent years, to have another route out of their awful situations, if they're willing to spend for it.

2. Reform the team-player rights and UFA rules. 7 years of control is too much, and the 8 year retention rule is a bad rule. These things are also the primary drivers of why free agency is so boring and uneventful. I'd say lower it to 5 or 6 years of control, and no term length retention bonuses, however it can be combined with a cap system overhaul to give a player retention higher contract limit like in the NBA.

3. Change the league format. Instead of 82 regular season games, have 68 games, and make the final 14 games into 4 different tournaments that decide everything:

Group 1 - Top 4 teams in each conference form an 8 team "president's trophy" group and compete for that + playoff seeding in a 14 game, home + away round robin (that's the other 7 teams twice each...and those 14 games + the first 68 = 82). They all qualify for the playoffs and get the high seeds

Teams 5-12 in the East and Teams 5-12 in the West are the next two groups, they play for the final 4 playoff positions in each conference. Same 14 game round robin format as above.

Bottom 8 teams in the league play a 14 game home + away round robin for draft position. Tournament standings = first 8 picks of the draft order. This abolishes tanking and the overpowered luck factor of the draft lottery.

This way you open up playoff opportunity to more teams by creating more playoff races, and give every single team and fanbase in the league actual important, meaningful hockey to end the year

1. I can get down with a luxury tax system although I'm not sure how the specifics of that would work as I don't follow the NBA.

2. I'm not opposed to a 5 or 6 year max contract length. I think it would shift things a little bit so GM's aren't "stuck" giving out these 7-8 year deals for guys 30+ years old. THESE are the contracts that ruin the league IMHO because a player at that point has earned a big contract and these are their PayDay deals, but they simply can't match their productivity to their cap hit past their mid-30's (sometimes even earlier).

3. Especially in a 33+ team league, which is unfortunately on the horizon, I like this idea a bit. I'm really opposed to Wild Card rounds in sports as I think it is just a few pointless extra games to generate revenue. But with so many teams in the league there isn't 'much of a difference between seeds #7-11 or so. I would be ok with a tournament but only if like you said it cuts the regular season down to 60 or so games. I think pro sports will need to re-think the playoffs going forward as they look to generate more revenue and have 34+ teams in their league.

However I absolutely wouldn't want a "Bottom 8" tournament. The Sharks and the Hawks were terrible, terrible teams last year and the year before. These teams aren't made better by duking it out against the Devils and Senators, or the Red Wings and Flyers the year before. Teams are rebuilt through the draft. The worse you are as a team the higher a draft pick you get. That's how it should be and I think the lottery system is mostly fine as it is now. Finishing as the worst team in the league only gets you a 25% chance of getting the 1st pick, yes you have the best odds of the group but the odds are still overwhelmingly against you. How would the Sharks be better off (and therefore the league) if instead of getting Celebrini they drafted Catton, Perehk, Silayev, etc...?

If anything it needs to be tightened up to include only the bottom 5 teams and include the rule you can't win the lottery more than twice in a given amount of time.

 

[WaW]

1. I can get down with a luxury tax system although I'm not sure how the specifics of that would work as I don't follow the NBA.

2. I'm not opposed to a 5 or 6 year max contract length. I think it would shift things a little bit so GM's aren't "stuck" giving out these 7-8 year deals for guys 30+ years old. THESE are the contracts that ruin the league IMHO because a player at that point has earned a big contract and these are their PayDay deals, but they simply can't match their productivity to their cap hit past their mid-30's (sometimes even earlier).

3. Especially in a 33+ team league, which is unfortunately on the horizon, I like this idea a bit. I'm really opposed to Wild Card rounds in sports as I think it is just a few pointless extra games to generate revenue. But with so many teams in the league there isn't 'much of a difference between seeds #7-11 or so. I would be ok with a tournament but only if like you said it cuts the regular season down to 60 or so games. I think pro sports will need to re-think the playoffs going forward as they look to generate more revenue and have 34+ teams in their league.

However I absolutely wouldn't want a "Bottom 8" tournament. The Sharks and the Hawks were terrible, terrible teams last year and the year before. These teams aren't made better by duking it out against the Devils and Senators, or the Red Wings and Flyers the year before. Teams are rebuilt through the draft. The worse you are as a team the higher a draft pick you get. That's how it should be and I think the lottery system is mostly fine as it is now. Finishing as the worst team in the league only gets you a 25% chance of getting the 1st pick, yes you have the best odds of the group but the odds are still overwhelmingly against you. How would the Sharks be better off (and therefore the league) if instead of getting Celebrini they drafted Catton, Perehk, Silayev, etc...?

If anything it needs to be tightened up to include only the bottom 5 teams and include the rule you can't win the lottery more than twice in a given amount of time.

So here's my rationale on the bottom 8 being in their own games 69-82 tournament round robin group. So yes, last year's Blackhawks, or this year's Sharks, were terrible, and almost certainly would have finished near the bottom, even with a smaller 14 game tournament, prob picking 5th-8th.

That's actually *not* a problem though, because no team stays historically awful for one or two seasons in a row...the natural cycle of things will see them slightly improved, and they'll make up for it by having a legit shot at winning that tournament a season or two later when they're only maybe the 4th or 8th worst team. It balances out, while eliminating tanking and the arbitrary bullshit luck factor where "some historically bad teams get to pick 1st overall through luck (like Chicago or SJ), and some historically bad teams get completely f***ed long term due to missing out on every opportunity to have a lottery pick (like Detroit or Anaheim before last year)"