Let's get back into this vibe.
The NHL doesn't have as many dumb rules as college hockey, but there are some things we can change to improve the sport. As always, I want your thoughts via Twitter or the comments, but here are mine.
Bye bye, puck over glass rule
It has run its course.
This was a well-intentioned if unfortunate change coming out of the 2004-05 lockout. Basically, officials refused to call penalties when the puck was clearly sent out of play on purpose. So the NHL took away the discretion.
But enough is enough. Players are NOT doing it on purpose anymore. And when officials aren't calling the most blatantly obvious fouls late in regulation or in overtime, but won't hesitate to call a penalty for the puck going out of play, it just looks silly.
"Want to slash a guy in the chops? GREAT! Just be careful to keep the puck in play!"
It's no secret I want this rule to die. It's not because I want players to feel free to throw the puck out of play with no repercussions. Instead, it's because I see this play as no different than icing. Yeah, sometimes a player takes an icing to get a whistle. When that happens, you don't see an uproar for said player to be penalized for delay of game, do you? It's the same thing. You're doing something to stop the game. Quite often, it's done on purpose. Why is it handled differently?
In college hockey, icing and pucks out of play from the defensive zone are handled identically. Faceoff in the defensive zone, and that team can't change personnel.
Do that in the NHL, and see what happens. No one is marrying the league to this rule, and it isn't going to hurt to try.
Hybrid icing/mandatory visors
There isn't much reason to list this, now that the rules are coming. But I talked about the visor bit in 2006, and it took this long to make the change. Yikes.
The hybrid icing change should have come before Kurtis Foster got hurt, but it's insulting that it took this long after Foster's catastrophic injury. College hockey has used this rule for a while, and it works much better than I ever thought it would going in.
(In fact, when it was first talked about, I was on record as practically hating the idea. I was totally wrong, and NCAA referees and linesmen should be saluted for the job they've done enforcing it.)
I wish visors were the law for all players, but the compromise is understandable. Many veteran players are already smart enough to use them, and hopefully more follow suit.
Stop suspending to the injury
Part of the maddening inconsistency with the NHL's Department of Player Safety comes from its insistence on over-evaluating injuries before suspending players for illegal hits.
If a hit is 1) clearly illegal, 2) particularly dangerous, or 3) it's either clearly intentional or exceptionally reckless, it shouldn't matter if the "victim" is injured.
An illegal hit is an illegal hit, whether the offending player gets lucky and doesn't injure someone or not. And illegal/dangerous/reckless hits need to be consistently punished if there is to ever be any hope of eliminating them from the game.
Consistent enforcement of the guidelines set forth by DPS should lead to an increased respect for the sport among its participants. Then we can hope that trickles down to the lower levels where checking is still permitted.
And if it doesn't work, well, hell, at least we tried.
No more three-point games, at least not this way
A win is two points, whether in regulation, overtime, or a shootout. A loss that happens after regulation is a point. So if a game goes overtime, it's worth three points. Otherwise, it's worth two.
I don't have to tell you how dumb that is.
The answer is right under the NHL's nose, and if it wasn't the NHL we were talking about, it'd be shocking that the NHL hadn't changed this system.
Here is how you do it:
Regulation win: Three points
Overtime/shootout win: Two points
Overtime/shootout loss: One point
Every game is worth the same number of points. Regulation wins can still be a primary playoff tiebreaker, but using that doesn't excuse having games worth two different point totals depending on where they finish.
Showing posts with label commissioner for a day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commissioner for a day. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Commissioner For A Day: College Hockey
I did this a few years ago, back before I had labels on posts, but you can find the 2006 series by searching the site for "Commissioner For A Day."
I'm bringing it back, largely because I'm tired of not writing on the site, and also because I think there are ideas to improve many of the pro sports I enjoy watching.
Oh, and because UMD's offseason is entirely too long because the season ended prematurely.
I figured it was natural to start the series with college hockey, because it's the sport I dedicate a lot of my winter life to covering. It should be noted that the majority of these ideas are mine and none are being blatantly stolen from anyone.
Your input is welcome, as always.
No more regionals at random sites.
The NCAA regional system is completely broken. Not partially. Completely. Inadequate facilities -- bad ice, small locker room areas, poor press accommodations, problems with internet access -- are hosting events in front of small crowds, while fans who can't afford the expensive short-notice flights are stuck struggling to find someone they know who has ESPNU or ESPN3 so they can watch games on television.
The TV ship has sailed. It isn't going to get any better. I've said for years that you need access to ESPNU if you want to watch the NCAA regionals. More than that, a die-hard college hockey fan should prepare themselves to do what is necessary to get BTN, NBC Sports Network, and CBS Sports Network if they want to follow the sport during the regular season. If you get those three channels, you have ESPNU, too. They're usually on the same tier.
So let's work to fix the regional site issue.
A few years ago (not sure the exact moment, but it was between when the funding for Amsoil Arena was approved and when it opened), the decision was made to move regionals to truly neutral sites. Before, places like Mariucci Arena and Ralph Engelstad Arena could host regionals. But the NCAA pushed away from that, deciding that arenas that served as a team's designated home facility wouldn't be allowed to host, and neither would facilities with Olympic-sized ice surfaces.
That rule should go away. Yeah, it's somewhat irritating to watch host schools gain spots in the Frozen Four while playing on home ice (Michigan, Minnesota, and North Dakota have all had this luxury in the past). But it's even more irritating to watch a team earn that spot with practically no one in the stands.
Ticket prices are a problem, yes, but if a St. Cloud State fan could afford to fly from wherever to Toledo for that team's regional this year (during Easter weekend on short notice), the $80 pricetag for a three-game pass wasn't going to stop them. That's pretty simple math.
Lowering ticket prices might draw more local fans to the games, which wouldn't be a bad idea if the NCAA insists on keeping the system as is. But I think a better way about gaining a championship atmosphere is allowing home rinks of 5,000 or more seats to host regionals. Let places like Amsoil Arena, The Ralph, Mariucci, Yost, Compton Family Ice Arena (Notre Dame), Conte Forum (BC), and so many others host these tournaments. Put the games in places where college hockey already has a following, lower ticket prices a hair, and see what happens, even if the host doesn't qualify.
(There is a push for best of three first round series on the campus sites of the high seeds. I like the idea, but it adds an extra weekend to the tournament, and I'm not sure it's feasible. I still think the best way is to give the top four seeds the options of hosting regionals on their home ice, provided some easily-met standards are reached. But there doesn't seem to be a ton of support for this, so I'll compromise and propose what is said above.)
Goodbye, dumb rule where a team that scores on a delayed penalty still gets the power play.
I started calling it the "Double jeopardy rule," after the law that prevents a person from being charged twice for the same crime. I have always thought it ridiculous that the powers-that-be in the sport thought this was a good idea.
Basically, the rule says that if a team scores a goal while on a delayed penalty, the penalty is still called and the power play still happens.
You'll notice that no other level of hockey has thought this was a good idea.
So how did it happen? I was told at the time that the rule basically slipped through because so much attention was paid to an even dumber proposed rule, one that would have kept teams from icing the puck while short-handed.
It's all about increasing offense, which is a fine endeavor, but it goes about it the wrong way. It really has no effect outside of being a dumb rule, because it's so rare that a team would score on a delayed penalty. It's even more rare that said team would then turn around and score on the ensuing power play.
If offense is the goal, let's try actually calling the penalties that are in the rulebook, especially those relating to obstruction. What a concept!
Any body contact foul that drives a player into the boards is an automatic ten-minute misconduct, optional ejection.
It's been a few years now since college hockey instituted a rule that called for mandatory major penalties and ejections for checks from behind that took place along the boards.
Have you noticed yet how the officials handle those?
If they don't want to call it a check from behind, it becomes a boarding penalty, or elbowing, or whatever.
Time for that to go. In order to truly promote safety, that discretion has to be taken away from the officials. But not completely.
There are times where an illegal hit simply doesn't rise to the level of an ejection because of mitigating circumstances. Players are deliberately turning their backs to draw illegal contact, which is beyond stupid because of the risk involved, but whatever. Players will also throw themselves into the boards to "sell" these hits. Yes, really. I've seen it happen.
To give the officials some discretion, any illegal hit along the boards should carry with it an automatic ten-minute misconduct, with the officials having the ability to eject the offending player if the hit is deemed to be severe enough.
Find a way to curtail embellishment.
Calling a coincidental minor for unsportsmanlike conduct on a dive isn't working, stripes. It just isn't.
How about putting a team short-handed because one of its players took a blatant dive to sell a penalty? Do that a few times, and see how that works.
Yeah, coaches hate it when players do something to negate a power play. They hate going short-handed even more, though.
I'm bringing it back, largely because I'm tired of not writing on the site, and also because I think there are ideas to improve many of the pro sports I enjoy watching.
Oh, and because UMD's offseason is entirely too long because the season ended prematurely.
I figured it was natural to start the series with college hockey, because it's the sport I dedicate a lot of my winter life to covering. It should be noted that the majority of these ideas are mine and none are being blatantly stolen from anyone.
Your input is welcome, as always.
No more regionals at random sites.
The NCAA regional system is completely broken. Not partially. Completely. Inadequate facilities -- bad ice, small locker room areas, poor press accommodations, problems with internet access -- are hosting events in front of small crowds, while fans who can't afford the expensive short-notice flights are stuck struggling to find someone they know who has ESPNU or ESPN3 so they can watch games on television.
The TV ship has sailed. It isn't going to get any better. I've said for years that you need access to ESPNU if you want to watch the NCAA regionals. More than that, a die-hard college hockey fan should prepare themselves to do what is necessary to get BTN, NBC Sports Network, and CBS Sports Network if they want to follow the sport during the regular season. If you get those three channels, you have ESPNU, too. They're usually on the same tier.
So let's work to fix the regional site issue.
A few years ago (not sure the exact moment, but it was between when the funding for Amsoil Arena was approved and when it opened), the decision was made to move regionals to truly neutral sites. Before, places like Mariucci Arena and Ralph Engelstad Arena could host regionals. But the NCAA pushed away from that, deciding that arenas that served as a team's designated home facility wouldn't be allowed to host, and neither would facilities with Olympic-sized ice surfaces.
That rule should go away. Yeah, it's somewhat irritating to watch host schools gain spots in the Frozen Four while playing on home ice (Michigan, Minnesota, and North Dakota have all had this luxury in the past). But it's even more irritating to watch a team earn that spot with practically no one in the stands.
Ticket prices are a problem, yes, but if a St. Cloud State fan could afford to fly from wherever to Toledo for that team's regional this year (during Easter weekend on short notice), the $80 pricetag for a three-game pass wasn't going to stop them. That's pretty simple math.
Lowering ticket prices might draw more local fans to the games, which wouldn't be a bad idea if the NCAA insists on keeping the system as is. But I think a better way about gaining a championship atmosphere is allowing home rinks of 5,000 or more seats to host regionals. Let places like Amsoil Arena, The Ralph, Mariucci, Yost, Compton Family Ice Arena (Notre Dame), Conte Forum (BC), and so many others host these tournaments. Put the games in places where college hockey already has a following, lower ticket prices a hair, and see what happens, even if the host doesn't qualify.
(There is a push for best of three first round series on the campus sites of the high seeds. I like the idea, but it adds an extra weekend to the tournament, and I'm not sure it's feasible. I still think the best way is to give the top four seeds the options of hosting regionals on their home ice, provided some easily-met standards are reached. But there doesn't seem to be a ton of support for this, so I'll compromise and propose what is said above.)
Goodbye, dumb rule where a team that scores on a delayed penalty still gets the power play.
I started calling it the "Double jeopardy rule," after the law that prevents a person from being charged twice for the same crime. I have always thought it ridiculous that the powers-that-be in the sport thought this was a good idea.
Basically, the rule says that if a team scores a goal while on a delayed penalty, the penalty is still called and the power play still happens.
You'll notice that no other level of hockey has thought this was a good idea.
So how did it happen? I was told at the time that the rule basically slipped through because so much attention was paid to an even dumber proposed rule, one that would have kept teams from icing the puck while short-handed.
It's all about increasing offense, which is a fine endeavor, but it goes about it the wrong way. It really has no effect outside of being a dumb rule, because it's so rare that a team would score on a delayed penalty. It's even more rare that said team would then turn around and score on the ensuing power play.
If offense is the goal, let's try actually calling the penalties that are in the rulebook, especially those relating to obstruction. What a concept!
Any body contact foul that drives a player into the boards is an automatic ten-minute misconduct, optional ejection.
It's been a few years now since college hockey instituted a rule that called for mandatory major penalties and ejections for checks from behind that took place along the boards.
Have you noticed yet how the officials handle those?
If they don't want to call it a check from behind, it becomes a boarding penalty, or elbowing, or whatever.
Time for that to go. In order to truly promote safety, that discretion has to be taken away from the officials. But not completely.
There are times where an illegal hit simply doesn't rise to the level of an ejection because of mitigating circumstances. Players are deliberately turning their backs to draw illegal contact, which is beyond stupid because of the risk involved, but whatever. Players will also throw themselves into the boards to "sell" these hits. Yes, really. I've seen it happen.
To give the officials some discretion, any illegal hit along the boards should carry with it an automatic ten-minute misconduct, with the officials having the ability to eject the offending player if the hit is deemed to be severe enough.
Find a way to curtail embellishment.
Calling a coincidental minor for unsportsmanlike conduct on a dive isn't working, stripes. It just isn't.
How about putting a team short-handed because one of its players took a blatant dive to sell a penalty? Do that a few times, and see how that works.
Yeah, coaches hate it when players do something to negate a power play. They hate going short-handed even more, though.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Commissioner For A Day: NASCAR
Commissioner For A Day is an ongoing series which will spotlight possible changes to improve the sports we all love. Today, The Ciskie Blog tackles issues facing NASCAR.When NASCAR started phasing in the Car of Tomorrow in 2007, it seemed like a really good idea. They trumpeted the safety of the new car, while also making it clear that the rules regarding the COT would make it easier for smaller teams to remain competitive.
In the third year of the new car, it's obvious NASCAR only got it half right.
Unfortunately, that's not the only major problem NASCAR is trying to deal with as they try to adapt their sport to a crappy economy that's affected race teams, race tracks, and race fans.
It's time to make NASCAR better. Here's the plan.
Take the COT back to the drawing board.
There is a new car model that will be used in the Nationwide Series starting in 2010. Reviews are positive so far, and perhaps NASCAR can use things that have been learned from that design to modify or overhaul the current Cup car.
It's bad enough that NASCAR seems to run 30 of its Cup races on 1.5-mile cookie-cutter tracks (no, it's not really that bad), and the COT generally sucks on those tracks. What's worse is when they try to race at Indy, Pocono, or Michigan, and the racing gets drawn out and relatively boring.
A good example of the problems facing NASCAR is last weekend's Brickyard 400. From lap 44 until around 110, it was a struggle to find any quality racing for position or green-flag passing. Oh, and pretty much that entire segment was run under green-flag conditions. That doesn't work for paying customers, television viewers, or broadcasters.
The car model is a big part of the problem. So is ...
Set up a rotation of racetracks on the Cup schedule.
Sorry, Long Pond. Pocono Raceway has not produced a compelling, interesting, entertaining race in years. It's time to try something else.
The same can be said for Auto Club Speedway in California.
There's no denying that these are important stops for NASCAR. Anything within a short flight of the New York and Los Angeles areas have an advantage, no matter how bad the racing is. Can the sport do better, though, than two stops at each during the season?
If you ask NASCAR fans, there are a few tracks they'll talk about as being perhaps not worthy of hosting races every season.
Others want more road courses, short tracks, or big ovals for their favorites to race on.
This idea is simple. You designate "untouchable tracks", places that will keep their races on the schedule every season, and will not have to worry about rotating off at any point. These tracks would be:
Daytona (2 races per season)
Las Vegas (1)
Bristol (2)
Martinsville (2)
Phoenix (2)
Richmond (2)
Dover (2)
Darlington (1)
Chicagoland (1)
Indianapolis (1)
Sonoma (1)
Watkins Glen (1)
Kansas (1)
Talladega (2)
Charlotte (2)
Homestead-Miami (1)
New Hampshire (2)
That's 26 races. 10 races remain in a 36-race season. The following tracks that currently host races are not on the above list.
Pocono (2)
Michigan (2)
Texas (2)
California (2)
Atlanta (2)
Let's not stop. There are some other tracks that could be worthy of hosting Sprint Cup events, just not every year. Among them:
Iowa Speedway
Kentucky Speedway
Road America
Rockingham
Also, account for tracks that already have one race, but could justify hosting two.
Las Vegas
Darlington
NASCAR has options. Instead of running the same schedule every year, and allowing its Sprint Cup dates to be handed out to the same, boring tracks, they can mix things up.
It's not about abandoning traditional stops. It's about letting some new tracks into the rotation to freshen things up.
One year, go to Kentucky instead of a second California race. The next year, maybe let California have two races.
There's no reason to send two races a year to tracks like California and Michigan that can't sell out races. Similarly, there's no reason to hold back Nationwide tracks like Kentucky that are getting great support.
It's an idea that would not be popular with the establishment, which is another reason to make it happen.
Start seriously discouraging Sprint Cup drivers from working the Nationwide Series.
It's simple. Drivers scheduled to run more than 20 Sprint Cup races in a season are not eligible to win the Nationwide points title.
The Nationwide Series doesn't need to be a minor league, necessarily, but it also doesn't need to be Cup Light. It operates at its best when Cup drivers compete part-time, and drivers like Brad Keselowski and Jason Leffler get a chance to shine.
Obviously, as long as points titles and races are won by Cup competitors, the series isn't ever going to reach its full potential.
Find television partners that give a crap about the sport.
When TNT airs races, they might be called by a relatively annoying presence in Bill Weber, but it's clear that they are all-in trying to have some fun covering the race. They let the fans into the broadcast booth with more interaction than any other NASCAR TV partner.
And after six races, they fade back into re-running bad movies and Law and Order.
Before them, you have FOX. They may have the best NASCAR play-by-play man on television in Mike Joy, but they employ two blowhard analysts in the booth, and their "Hollywood Hotel" is manned by one guy who is decent (Jeff Hammond) and a guy who usually looks like he's being tortured with this horrific racing duty (Chris Myers).
FOX's idea of innovation is an animated gopher, and they spend most of their races fellating Kyle Busch and Dale Earnhardt, Jr.
After TNT's "Summer Series", ESPN takes over. They like to show the points leaders, regardless of their position on the track, and they've taken quite a liking to in-car cameras and close-up shots that don't show any racing.
Maybe they don't think fans can see the car numbers, because their announcers are constantly referring to guys by their car number instead of just their name. Of course, any fan who has watched more than three races probably can figure out that Kyle Busch drives car No. 18.
Fans could get past boring play-by-play announcer Jerry Punch were it not for whoever it is in the truck that insists on showing all the closeups.
The fact that none of these problems have gone away in the time FOX and ESPN have carried races shows that neither network cares much for the product they are airing. Either that, or they're listening to the wrong focus groups.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)