New Rules?

USCHO article on the coaches meeting.

It would change our game:

Anastos, the rules committee chair, said the most prominent idea presented to increase scoring opportunities was to not allow players to intentionally leave a skating position (i.e., kneel or lay down) to block shots.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on the coaches meeting.

It would change our game:

Anastos, the rules committee chair, said the most prominent idea presented to increase scoring opportunities was to not allow players to intentionally leave a skating position (i.e., kneel or lay down) to block shots.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

What? That's absurd. I came around to understand the hand pass thing (conceptually, there isn't really any reason why you should be allowed to hand pass in the defensive zone). This is just nuts (said lots of people about every rule change ever in any sport, I'm sure).

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on the coaches meeting.

It would change our game:

Anastos, the rules committee chair, said the most prominent idea presented to increase scoring opportunities was to not allow players to intentionally leave a skating position (i.e., kneel or lay down) to block shots.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

How stupid. When I played defense, I was pysched it I got a good block on a shot and prevented a scoring chance. If this passes, maybe next up would be to get rid of the goalie for a "shooter tutor".

Rita

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on the coaches meeting.

It would change our game:

Anastos, the rules committee chair, said the most prominent idea presented to increase scoring opportunities was to not allow players to intentionally leave a skating position (i.e., kneel or lay down) to block shots.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

How stupid. When I played defense, I was pysched it I got a good block on a shot and prevented a scoring chance. If this passes, maybe next up would be to get rid of the goalie for a "shooter tutor".

They could start by changing the rules on goalie pads so they'd look like this again:

Like what, the pads barely reaching the knees?

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on the coaches meeting.
It would change our game:

Anastos, the rules committee chair, said the most prominent idea presented to increase scoring opportunities was to not allow players to intentionally leave a skating position (i.e., kneel or lay down) to block shots.
Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Can't drop to your knees or to the ice to block shots? What's so terrible about that? Scoring goes up, fewer players get injured blocking hard shots, you could go back to half-visors.

billhoward
Like what, the pads barely reaching the knees?

Like a human being rather than the Michelin man. LeNeveu's chest padding made him look more deep than wide.

billhoward

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on the coaches meeting.
It would change our game:

Anastos, the rules committee chair, said the most prominent idea presented to increase scoring opportunities was to not allow players to intentionally leave a skating position (i.e., kneel or lay down) to block shots.
Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Can't drop to your ,knees or to the ice to block shots? What's so terrible about that? Scoring goes up, fewer players get injured blocking hard shots, you could go back to half-visors.

This seems like the wrong way to go about it though. Kind of like saying a wide receiver can't leave his feet to catch a pass because that's dangerous.

Limiting the size of the goaltender's padding is the most effective (and least invasive) way to restore a little more balance, though as long as they continue to aggressively punish impedence penalties I don't even think a big problem exists anymore.

I wouldn't cry if they banned composites, either, from what I've read, which granted isn't very much.

Al DeFlorio

There was a time when a goalie looked like a human, with legs, arms, and a recognizably human form. A save required moving a glove, a stick, a blocker, or a leg. No more. Today a goalie is so padded he just stands in the way. A snapped glove save causes wonderment in an announcer.

Compare any photo of Dryden in a Cornell or Montreal uniform with any goalie today. No wonder it's so difficult to score anymore, and why teams like this year's RPIs and Colgates can hang in with and beat much better teams even though dominated on the ice.

I couldn't agree with you more. Here are goalie pads from 1902, 1965 and 2012. Kanji at 5'11" is over 4" shorter than Dryden, but taller than the goalie on the left (Dave Quarrie?) in the 1965-66 freshman team photo who appears to be about the same height as 5'10" Brian Cornell.

Here's another fine idea!

Among the outside-the-box ways to get more of a balance in scheduling was this idea: Disqualify any teams that play more than 60 percent of their non-conference games at home from NCAA tournament consideration. That concept, however, was a non-starter among the coaching body as a whole.

Trotsky
This seems like the wrong way to go about it though. Kind of like saying a wide receiver can't leave his feet to catch a pass because that's dangerous.

Limiting the size of the goaltender's padding is the most effective (and least invasive) way to restore a little more balance, though as long as they continue to aggressively punish impedence penalties I don't even think a big problem exists anymore.

I wouldn't cry if they banned composites, either, from what I've read, which granted isn't very much.

Football isn't made of hard rubber, isn't sailing at 60+ mph, isn't capable of hitting you in the face. The purpose of blocking a shot is to interpose a solid and defenseless object in the way of the puck.

Limit the size of the goalie pads? That'd be okay, too. No reason you can't do both.

I've never subscribed to the Hemingway theory that only bullfighting and auto racing are true sports because there you risk your life. (I'm still undecided about gymnastics Olympic ribbon waving as a true sport.) I'd extend that to not believing you must have facets to sport that ramp up the risk of injury.

Surely making the goals bigger would be the easiest way to increase scoring. But is that even a desirable end?

billhoward

Trotsky
This seems like the wrong way to go about it though. Kind of like saying a wide receiver can't leave his feet to catch a pass because that's dangerous.

Limiting the size of the goaltender's padding is the most effective (and least invasive) way to restore a little more balance, though as long as they continue to aggressively punish impedence penalties I don't even think a big problem exists anymore.

I wouldn't cry if they banned composites, either, from what I've read, which granted isn't very much.

Football isn't made of hard rubber, isn't sailing at 60+ mph, isn't capable of hitting you in the face. The purpose of blocking a shot is to interpose a solid and defenseless object in the way of the puck.

Limit the size of the goalie pads? That'd be okay, too. No reason you can't do both.

I've never subscribed to the Hemingway theory that only bullfighting and auto racing are true sports because there you risk your life. (I'm still undecided about gymnastics Olympic ribbon waving as a true sport.) I'd extend that to not believing you must have facets to sport that ramp up the risk of injury.

A strawman, a banality, and a non-sequitor. Congratulations on your empty rhetoric hat trick.

This is would be a sad rule change. One of my favorite things in hockey is watching a forward selflessly dive in front of a shot like a bodyguard taking a bullet.

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on the coaches meeting.

It would change our game:

Anastos, the rules committee chair, said the most prominent idea presented to increase scoring opportunities was to not allow players to intentionally leave a skating position (i.e., kneel or lay down) to block shots.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

This is dumb. How do you enforce this? Are they going to put contact sensors on the skaters' knees to know if they hit the ice? I don't see how the officials would be able to consistently differentiate between a "skating position" and not.

The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Kyle Rose

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on the coaches meeting.

It would change our game:

Anastos, the rules committee chair, said the most prominent idea presented to increase scoring opportunities was to not allow players to intentionally leave a skating position (i.e., kneel or lay down) to block shots.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

This is dumb. How do you enforce this? Are they going to put contact sensors on the skaters' knees to know if they hit the ice? I don't see how the officials would be able to consistently differentiate between a "skating position" and not.

The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

After a while it's not so bad. Fewer teeth.

As the Caps-Rangers game demonstrated today, you got to be able to block shots. I know that according to the NC$$ most of the "student-athletes" will be going pro in something else, but for those that do on playing hockey, shot blocking is among the required skill set.

Kyle Rose
The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Players do it in the NHL with (often though not always) no face protection at all.

Just ask Mark Fraser...

Kyle Rose
The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Doesn't help the guy who takes a deflection full face, though.

Removing bumpers may not be optimal for reducing traffic accident injuries.

It's been 60 years. Engineers can get off their butts and finally do some work:



Damned if that aint Gordie Howe...

Rita
As the Caps-Rangers game demonstrated today, you got to be able to block shots. I know that according to the NC$$ most of the "student-athletes" will be going pro in something else, but for those that do on playing hockey, shot blocking is among the required skill set.

While trying to legislate shot-blocking from the game is absurd, this argument could be (and is, relentlessly, in major junior) made for why fighting "must be" part of the game.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Doesn't help the guy who takes a deflection full face, though.

Deflections always have less energy: elastic collisions are really not possible with any of the materials involved.

That doesn't mean they can't injure. Eliminating cages also wouldn't really mean that "no one" would kneel to block shots. But as with any change to incentives, it would reduce the dangerous behavior. So would changing the rules to prohibit shot blocking, but with the danger of hockey's penalties approaching the inane arbitrariness of squeakball's foul rules. No thanks.

Removing bumpers may not be optimal for reducing traffic accident injuries.

Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

CowbellGuy
Just ask Mark Fraser...

Fraser, it should be pointed out, was standing basically upright and not actively trying to block the shot that hit him in the face. Mandating this "skating position" thing might increase offense (if we assume that's a goal that needs to be achieve) but it's not going to do anything for safety.

Josh '99
Fraser, it should be pointed out, was standing basically upright and not actively trying to block the shot that hit him in the face. Mandating this "skating position" thing might increase offense (if we assume that's a goal that needs to be achieve) but it's not going to do anything for safety.

I know, I know, The timing was appropriate though

Kyle Rose

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Doesn't help the guy who takes a deflection full face, though.

Deflections always have less energy: elastic collisions are really not possible with any of the materials involved.

It's all ball bearings these days.

Kyle Rose
Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

There's something intuitively attractive to the idea that the safer we are the worse we drive, but there's also the empirically demonstrable fact that young males will always be fuckwits. I strongly suspect, no matter how unsafe you made them, they would still be, as a class, the Greatest Menace We Face.

This is why God made conscription.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
The easiest way to achieve fewer blocked shots is to outlaw full cages: no one's going to be stupid enough to kneel to block a slapshot if they have a chance of taking it in the teeth.

Doesn't help the guy who takes a deflection full face, though.

Deflections always have less energy: elastic collisions are really not possible with any of the materials involved.

That doesn't mean they can't injure. Eliminating cages also wouldn't really mean that "no one" would kneel to block shots. But as with any change to incentives, it would reduce the dangerous behavior. So would changing the rules to prohibit shot blocking, but with the danger of hockey's penalties approaching the inane arbitrariness of squeakball's foul rules. No thanks.

Removing bumpers may not be optimal for reducing traffic accident injuries.

Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

I am a potential subject for this experiment. Walking in Miami is FREAKIN dangerous. However, I think there are other variables at play besides car safety and traffic controls... i.e. the ability to understand the traffic control laws in our country. When I get hit Kyle, you'll be one of the first people I notify .

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

There's something intuitively attractive to the idea that the safer we are the worse we drive, but there's also the empirically demonstrable fact that young males will always be fuckwits. I strongly suspect, no matter how unsafe you made them, they would still be, as a class, the Greatest Menace We Face.

This is why God made conscription.

I suspect that the more societies try to restrict the ability of young males to make stupid decisions the more they try to rebel and take even greater risks. As with most things there's probably a sweet spot where there's some modest degree of prevention/safety and some freedom fo the indidivual to be a fuckwit.

KeithK

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

There's something intuitively attractive to the idea that the safer we are the worse we drive, but there's also the empirically demonstrable fact that young males will always be fuckwits. I strongly suspect, no matter how unsafe you made them, they would still be, as a class, the Greatest Menace We Face.

This is why God made conscription.

I suspect that the more societies try to restrict the ability of young males to make stupid decisions the more they try to rebel and take even greater risks. As with most things there's probably a sweet spot where there's some modest degree of prevention/safety and some freedom fo the indidivual to be a fuckwit.

"There's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college."

Seems like a rule of this sort would be more fodder for the Canadian leagues to use to convince players with NHL aspirations to skip the college route.

KeithK

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
Absolutely, but I do wonder whether the severity and/or frequency of asymmetric accidents (e.g., between a car and a pedestrian, or a car and a bicycle) have increased as safety devices have gotten better and as traffic controls have proliferated (controlled of course for traffic density, among other things). I simply don't know, but the answer would be interesting either way.

There's something intuitively attractive to the idea that the safer we are the worse we drive, but there's also the empirically demonstrable fact that young males will always be fuckwits. I strongly suspect, no matter how unsafe you made them, they would still be, as a class, the Greatest Menace We Face.

This is why God made conscription.

I suspect that the more societies try to restrict the ability of young males to make stupid decisions the more they try to rebel and take even greater risks. As with most things there's probably a sweet spot where there's some modest degree of prevention/safety and some freedom fo the indidivual to be a fuckwit.

I wouldn't worry. When they rebel they're just following another pre-fabricated script, and they're just another marketing opportunity.

But if there was an actual threat, the best way prevent them from screwing up anything important might be to distract them with the prolonged adolescence of consumerism, alcohol, sports, and

Hey. WAIT A MINUTE...

I would like them to go back to the best of 3 first round. Play well and get a home series and you get more fans in the seats. even a place like lynah would sell more tickets than some of the regionls did and you would have a chance for 24 games instead of 12..

upprdeck
I would like them to go back to the best of 3 first round. Play well and get a home series and you get more fans in the seats. even a place like lynah would sell more tickets than some of the regionls did and you would have a chance for 24 games instead of 12..

I would love this. It's one of those things that is dismissed out of hand by the ESPN-sniffer media types who like seeing their bylines coming out of "national" venues, but it would be a far better system than the current one.

Cornell had bad timing. In the 70's they were often in the 5-10 range when only four teams made the tourny; then in the 00's they were often in the top 6 *just after* the early round home sites were phased out.

Neither of these seem to need their own thread.

New rules for Atlantic Hockey as they plan to move up.

Where do you want the Frozen Fours to be?

KeithK
I suspect that the more societies try to restrict the ability of young males to make stupid decisions the more they try to rebel and take even greater risks. As with most things there's probably a sweet spot where there's some modest degree of prevention/safety and some freedom fo the indidivual to be a fuckwit.

Freedom of Fuckwittery, the oft-overlooked Amendment XXVIII.

Beeeej

KeithK
I suspect that the more societies try to restrict the ability of young males to make stupid decisions the more they try to rebel and take even greater risks. As with most things there's probably a sweet spot where there's some modest degree of prevention/safety and some freedom fo the indidivual to be a fuckwit.

Freedom of Fuckwittery, the oft-overlooked Amendment XXVIII.

Nah, it's in the common law.

The dangers of having read a marketing textbook. Only thing missing was the preface, "At the end of the day, there may be a broadening ... " Other than Hockey East in the East, filling the arena is a tall order. I wonder if they know Atlantic City is available.

Atlantic Hockey commissioner Bob DeGregorio in USCHO
“There may be a broadening of branding and media,” DeGregorio said. “We’re also looking at things like the timing of games at our championships to accommodate more [fan travel]..."
[www.uscho.com]

Nice summary, by Adam, of where the issues stand, prior to a NCAA men's ice hockey committee this week.

Jim Hyla
Nice summary, by Adam, of where the issues stand, prior to a NCAA men's ice hockey committee this week.

This was striking:

Most coaches, however, prefer to stay at neutral sites and believe that going back to campus would amount to a "step backwards" for the sport.

Because when you're stepping off a cliff you wouldn't want to "step backwards."

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
Nice summary, by Adam, of where the issues stand, prior to a NCAA men's ice hockey committee this week.

This was striking:

Most coaches, however, prefer to stay at neutral sites and believe that going back to campus would amount to a "step backwards" for the sport.

Because when you're stepping off a cliff you wouldn't want to "step backwards."

Not if the back step leads you to Yost.

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
Nice summary, by Adam, of where the issues stand, prior to a NCAA men's ice hockey committee this week.

This was striking:

Most coaches, however, prefer to stay at neutral sites and believe that going back to campus would amount to a "step backwards" for the sport.

Because when you're stepping off a cliff you wouldn't want to "step backwards."

Not if the back step leads you to Yost.

Or Lynah?
Anyway, we already have that with regional "hosting," and that's even worse since a 3 or 4 can be home as long as they pay for play.

Trotsky

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
Nice summary, by Adam, of where the issues stand, prior to a NCAA men's ice hockey committee this week.

This was striking:

Most coaches, however, prefer to stay at neutral sites and believe that going back to campus would amount to a "step backwards" for the sport.

Because when you're stepping off a cliff you wouldn't want to "step backwards."

Not if the back step leads you to Yost.

Or Lynah?
Anyway, we already have that with regional "hosting," and that's even worse since a 3 or 4 can be home as long as they pay for play.

Agreed. Although the silver lining is that it hasn't meant a title for UNH.

Trotsky

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
Nice summary, by Adam, of where the issues stand, prior to a NCAA men's ice hockey committee this week.

This was striking:

Most coaches, however, prefer to stay at neutral sites and believe that going back to campus would amount to a "step backwards" for the sport.

Because when you're stepping off a cliff you wouldn't want to "step backwards."

Not if the back step leads you to Yost.

Or Lynah?
Anyway, we already have that with regional "hosting," and that's even worse since a 3 or 4 can be home as long as they pay for play.

Well, it's not truly home, even if they are the sponsor.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
Nice summary, by Adam, of where the issues stand, prior to a NCAA men's ice hockey committee this week.

This was striking:

Most coaches, however, prefer to stay at neutral sites and believe that going back to campus would amount to a "step backwards" for the sport.

Because when you're stepping off a cliff you wouldn't want to "step backwards."

Not if the back step leads you to Yost.

Or Lynah?
Anyway, we already have that with regional "hosting," and that's even worse since a 3 or 4 can be home as long as they pay for play.

Well, it's not truly home, even if they are the sponsor.

Fiction. Yes, they might not have the last change if the host is the lower seed, which counts for something. But they'll we able to sleep in their own beds and have a highly partisan crowd. That counts for a bunch.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
Nice summary, by Adam, of where the issues stand, prior to a NCAA men's ice hockey committee this week.

This was striking:

Most coaches, however, prefer to stay at neutral sites and believe that going back to campus would amount to a "step backwards" for the sport.

Because when you're stepping off a cliff you wouldn't want to "step backwards."

Not if the back step leads you to Yost.

Or Lynah?
Anyway, we already have that with regional "hosting," and that's even worse since a 3 or 4 can be home as long as they pay for play.

Well, it's not truly home, even if they are the sponsor.

Fiction. Yes, they might not have the last change if the host is the lower seed, which counts for something. But they'll we able to sleep in their own beds and have a highly partisan crowd. That counts for a bunch.

Some less fiction than that. For example, if Michigan sponsors Grand Rapids, they will likely have a more Michigan crowd, but it's a lot different than playing home at Yost. There can be a difference.

USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

"The NCAA Division I men’s ice hockey committee would like to turn down the volatility in the PairWise Rankings based on the so-called teams under consideration cliff.

Now it just needs to figure out how to do it."

I'd guess a five-minute phone call with JTW would take care of it.

Al DeFlorio

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

"The NCAA Division I men’s ice hockey committee would like to turn down the volatility in the PairWise Rankings based on the so-called teams under consideration cliff.

Now it just needs to figure out how to do it."

I'd guess a five-minute phone call with JTW would take care of it.

As if JTW can explain anything mathematical in nature in under five minutes.

If I had to wager a guess, the problem (or, at least, a problem) is that the committee likes having criteria that are objective, and, even more so, likes having criteria that both objective and fairly easily understandable to a broad audience (and rightly so, I think). While KRACH (or something along those lines) is a better way to rank teams, it's als fairly opaque to the average observer, and I think there's some tension between wanting a better system but also not wanting that better system to come at the cost of the transparency of the process. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and they don't give a crap, but in any case it's nice to know they actually do want a better system.

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

"The NCAA Division I men’s ice hockey committee would like to turn down the volatility in the PairWise Rankings based on the so-called teams under consideration cliff.

Now it just needs to figure out how to do it."

I'd guess a five-minute phone call with JTW would take care of it.

As if JTW can explain anything mathematical in nature in under five minutes.

If I had to wager a guess, the problem (or, at least, a problem) is that the committee likes having criteria that are objective, and, even more so, likes having criteria that both objective and fairly easily understandable to a broad audience (and rightly so, I think). While KRACH (or something along those lines) is a better way to rank teams, it's als fairly opaque to the average observer, and I think there's some tension between wanting a better system but also not wanting that better system to come at the cost of the transparency of the process. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and they don't give a crap, but in any case it's nice to know they actually do want a better system.

It's pretty clear the NCAA has no intention of looking for a "better system" to replace pairwise. All they're looking to do is fix the TUC cliff within the existing pairwise, and that doesn't require rocket science. We've had several suggestions to fix it right here on eLynah.

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

Jim Hyla
USCHO article on what has come from the meetings, so far. Where are you Adam, you lead the way on this before the meetings.

"The NCAA Division I men’s ice hockey committee would like to turn down the volatility in the PairWise Rankings based on the so-called teams under consideration cliff.

Now it just needs to figure out how to do it."

I'd guess a five-minute phone call with JTW would take care of it.

As if JTW can explain anything mathematical in nature in under five minutes.

If I had to wager a guess, the problem (or, at least, a problem) is that the committee likes having criteria that are objective, and, even more so, likes having criteria that both objective and fairly easily understandable to a broad audience (and rightly so, I think). While KRACH (or something along those lines) is a better way to rank teams, it's als fairly opaque to the average observer, and I think there's some tension between wanting a better system but also not wanting that better system to come at the cost of the transparency of the process. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and they don't give a crap, but in any case it's nice to know they actually do want a better system.

It's pretty clear the NCAA has no intention of looking for a "better system" to replace pairwise. All they're looking to do is fix the TUC cliff within the existing pairwise, and that doesn't require rocket science. We've had several suggestions to fix it right here on eLynah.

Granted, but I would suggest that they see the existing pairwise with the TUC cliff fixed as a "better system" than what they have now (whether it's a "better system" or an "improved version of the existing system" is splitting hairs), even if it's only incrementally better rather than a ground-up reworking.

ECAC report on results of NCAA Rules Comm. meeting.
Reemphasis of some current rules and these thoughts for the future:

The committees discussed several concepts for consideration to enhance the game in the future, including:

Only goalkeeper may be in the crease as a defending player (other than a stick).
Making leaving feet to play the puck illegal.
Using different faceoff locations (e.g., fewer number).
Adjustments to penalty time – playing must serve full amount of time.
Major penalties late in games: Making these an automatic disqualification if the full penalty time is not served.
Determining the icing decision at the top of the circles instead of at the faceoff dot.
Keeping informed with NHL equipment standards – padding restrictions, goalkeeper changes, etc.

I don't know how they would have fewer faceoff locations, eliminate center ice?

USCHO reports that FF may go to Sat./Mon. schedule.

Maybe Adam can tell us more about this and the rules discussion, and if any of the changes are realistic in 2014.

Jim Hyla
ECAC report on results of NCAA Rules Comm. meeting.
Reemphasis of some current rules and these thoughts for the future:

The committees discussed several concepts for consideration to enhance the game in the future, including:

Only goalkeeper may be in the crease as a defending player (other than a stick).
Making leaving feet to play the puck illegal.
Using different faceoff locations (e.g., fewer number).
Adjustments to penalty time – playing must serve full amount of time.
Major penalties late in games: Making these an automatic disqualification if the full penalty time is not served.
Determining the icing decision at the top of the circles instead of at the faceoff dot.
Keeping informed with NHL equipment standards – padding restrictions, goalkeeper changes, etc.

I don't know how they would have fewer faceoff locations, eliminate center ice?

Just do away with the ice altogether and play volley ball. The first two ideas seem to point in that direction.

(Also, will keeping informed with the NHL equipment standards allow for play without face protection? I know I must be missing the point of that item...)

marty

Jim Hyla
ECAC report on results of NCAA Rules Comm. meeting.
Reemphasis of some current rules and these thoughts for the future:

The committees discussed several concepts for consideration to enhance the game in the future, including:

Only goalkeeper may be in the crease as a defending player (other than a stick).
Making leaving feet to play the puck illegal.
Using different faceoff locations (e.g., fewer number).
Adjustments to penalty time – playing must serve full amount of time.
Major penalties late in games: Making these an automatic disqualification if the full penalty time is not served.
Determining the icing decision at the top of the circles instead of at the faceoff dot.
Keeping informed with NHL equipment standards – padding restrictions, goalkeeper changes, etc.

I don't know how they would have fewer faceoff locations, eliminate center ice?

Just do away with the ice altogether and play volley ball. The first two ideas seem to point in that direction.

(Also, will keeping informed with the NHL equipment standards allow for play without face protection? I know I must be missing the point of that item...)

I don't understand why they seem to spend so much time trying to tinker with the rules of a sport that is "mature". Hockey's been a pretty good game for a long time. It doesn't need constant tweaks to the rules every year.

I understand the approach when there is somesignificant new development that needs to be addressed (whether injury, equipment, play style).But I don't see that here.

marty

Jim Hyla
ECAC report on results of NCAA Rules Comm. meeting.
Reemphasis of some current rules and these thoughts for the future:

The committees discussed several concepts for consideration to enhance the game in the future, including:

Only goalkeeper may be in the crease as a defending player (other than a stick).
Making leaving feet to play the puck illegal.
Using different faceoff locations (e.g., fewer number).
Adjustments to penalty time – playing must serve full amount of time.
Major penalties late in games: Making these an automatic disqualification if the full penalty time is not served.
Determining the icing decision at the top of the circles instead of at the faceoff dot.
Keeping informed with NHL equipment standards – padding restrictions, goalkeeper changes, etc.

I understand that most hockey rinks use DiHydrogen Oxide in their ice. This is a very very powerful solvent and should be banned.

Also, the puck has hard edges and should be replaces with a nerf like product to prevent injury.

Don't even get me started on skates.



I don't know how they would have fewer faceoff locations, eliminate center ice?

Just do away with the ice altogether and play volley ball. The first two ideas seem to point in that direction.

(Also, will keeping informed with the NHL equipment standards allow for play without face protection? I know I must be missing the point of that item...)

KeithK
I don't understand why they seem to spend so much time trying to tinker with the rules of a sport that is "mature". Hockey's been a pretty good game for a long time. It doesn't need constant tweaks to the rules every year.

An organism's first priority is to perpetuate itself.

Trotsky

KeithK
I don't understand why they seem to spend so much time trying to tinker with the rules of a sport that is "mature". Hockey's been a pretty good game for a long time. It doesn't need constant tweaks to the rules every year.

An organism's first priority is to perpetuate itself.

Yeah, good point.But these are people (coaches) who already have jobs.

RIT Coach Wilson talks about where to play post-season and non-conference games.

“Without Atlantic Hockey, there wouldn’t be a 16-team tournament. That’s where the growth is coming from.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

Jim Hyla
RIT Coach Wilson talks about where to play post-season and non-conference games.

“Without Atlantic Hockey, there wouldn’t be a 16-team tournament. That’s where the growth is coming from.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

I very much agree with all of Wilson's points, especially in getting programs like Michigan and BC to travel.

RichH

Jim Hyla
RIT Coach Wilson talks about where to play post-season and non-conference games.

“Without Atlantic Hockey, there wouldn’t be a 16-team tournament. That’s where the growth is coming from.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

I very much agree with all of Wilson's points, especially in getting programs like Michigan and BC to travel.

I'd push for a rule like: a team must play a minimum of xx% of their out of conferencegames on the road (not neutral ice) over a yy year window. The percentage might be 25 or 33 and maybe you use a three year window. As for enforcement, the ideal penalty would be tournament eligibility. But maybe excessive home games are counted as loasses for the offending team.

Ok, so this is probably a pipe dream. I'm not sure how the rule committee/power structure is set up. Is it even possible for a large number of schools to force a rule change over the objection of a few large schools? I have to imagine the number of DI teams in the have-not category exceed the haves.

OTOH, a rule like this might result in an even more disconnected schedule where the NCHC and B10 type schools only play each other. Which wouldn't necessarily be good for the sport either.

KeithK

RichH

Jim Hyla
RIT Coach Wilson talks about where to play post-season and non-conference games.

“Without Atlantic Hockey, there wouldn’t be a 16-team tournament. That’s where the growth is coming from.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

I very much agree with all of Wilson's points, especially in getting programs like Michigan and BC to travel.

I'd push for a rule like: a team must play a minimum of xx% of their out of conferencegames on the road (not neutral ice) over a yy year window. The percentage might be 25 or 33 and maybe you use a three year window. As for enforcement, the ideal penalty would be tournament eligibility. But maybe excessive home games are counted as loasses for the offending team.

Ok, so this is probably a pipe dream. I'm not sure how the rule committee/power structure is set up. Is it even possible for a large number of schools to force a rule change over the objection of a few large schools? I have to imagine the number of DI teams in the have-not category exceed the haves.

OTOH, a rule like this might result in an even more disconnected schedule where the NCHC and B10 type schools only play each other. Which wouldn't necessarily be good for the sport either.

It's all probably a pipe dream, but what if you lowered the games limit and broadened the exemptions? Cap total games at 28 or 29 but exempt broad classes of road games. You want more game? Travel for them.

Chris '03
It's all probably a pipe dream, but what if you lowered the games limit and broadened the exemptions? Cap total games at 28 or 29 but exempt broad classes of road games. You want more game? Travel for them.

This would run into the opposite problem: small fry who wanted to host would run into the game limit.

One way to fix this would be to exempt both the host and guest from the game limit if the series was home-and-home. This would be (IMHO) doubly beneficial to the small fry, since they would both get to host a power team and also play in its environment. Those are the sort of conditions that build programs and fan bases.

Some PWR ways to help:

+ privilege NC road wins
+ discount NC road losses

Weight the PWR impact of games against opponent X as follows: Away Win > Home Win > Away Tie > Home Tie > Away Loss > Home Loss

RichH

Jim Hyla
RIT Coach Wilson talks about where to play post-season and non-conference games.

“Without Atlantic Hockey, there wouldn’t be a 16-team tournament. That’s where the growth is coming from.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

I very much agree with all of Wilson's points, especially in getting programs like Michigan and BC to travel.

What did RIT have to give up to get Michigan? Every player's first born?

Michigan actually has a pretty tough non-conference schedule.....they're also playing UNH (2 games) and Nebraska-Omaha (2) on the road. Of course they're playing BC, BU, UMass-Lowell. Michigan Tech (2), Niagara and Ferris State at home. 7 at home, 5 on the road, it's not so egregious this year.

Michigan 2013-14 Schedule

CHN on concussion and goaltenders.

Part I

Part II

Part III Thursday.

USCHO on new selection criteria. Road wins, quality wins get boosts in changes to NCAA tournament selection criteria . Article on thoughts behind the changes.

Interesting that they will reward road wins. However, you wonder if that will get the top teams to travel. They mention Michigan coming to RIT this season. If RIT loses, it's a 1.2 loss. If they had gone to Ann Arbor and lost, it would cost 0.8.

Jim Hyla
USCHO on new selection criteria. Road wins, quality wins get boosts in changes to NCAA tournament selection criteria . Article on thoughts behind the changes.

Interesting that they will reward road wins. However, you wonder if that will get the top teams to travel. They mention Michigan coming to RIT this season. If RIT loses, it's a 1.2 loss. If they had gone to Ann Arbor and lost, it would cost 0.8.

Even though the cupcake-rent-seeking of the factory schools knows no bounds, this is a step in the right direction, anyway.

nyc94

RichH

Jim Hyla
RIT Coach Wilson talks about where to play post-season and non-conference games.

“Without Atlantic Hockey, there wouldn’t be a 16-team tournament. That’s where the growth is coming from.”

Read more: [www.uscho.com]

I very much agree with all of Wilson's points, especially in getting programs like Michigan and BC to travel.

What did RIT have to give up to get Michigan? Every player's first born?

RIT certainly knows how to throw a hockey party. Making their annual game at Blue Cross Arena part of their Brick City Homecoming has paid off well. Since Cornell last made the trip in 2007, which set RIT's "home" attendance record at 5,142, they've seen impressive crowds at their BCA games. After a drop against SLU (3,296), they've seen crowds of 7,421 (Colgate), 10,556 (UML, SLU, and Penn State), and Michigan sold out a couple of weeks ago. With a new arena being built, and every home game broadcast on Time Warner in the Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse areas, they've got a good thing going on in Henrietta.

Al DeFlorio
They could start by changing the rules on goalie pads so they'd look like this again:

obyehic09x0uuygx.jpg

The NHL has reduced the height of goalie pads by about two inches for the 2013-14 season. Only about six more to go.

George64

Al DeFlorio
They could start by changing the rules on goalie pads so they'd look like this again:

obyehic09x0uuygx.jpg

The NHL has reduced the height of goalie pads by about two inches for the 2013-14 season. Only about six more to go.

I don't mean just the pads covering knees and shins, etc. I mean all the padding: chest, shoulders, hips, everywhere. Goalies no longer look like human beings. With today's new lightweight protective materials, there's no reason for a goalie to look like Bibendum the Michelin Man.

Al DeFlorio
Bibendum the Michelin Man.

Huh. Never too old to learn something new!

This week is the meeting to discuss new rules.

Jim Hyla
This week is the meeting to discuss new rules.

Ugh. Why do we have to have a WINNER for each regular season contest? If two teams play to a tie, so be it. Each team gets a point and tries to do better the next time out. I'm ok with the current ECAC 5 min 5v5 OT session.

If they do go to some freaking shoot-out system, I hope the college powers that be have better math skills than the NHL.

Rita

Jim Hyla
This week is the meeting to discuss new rules.

Ugh. Why do we have to have a WINNER for each regular season contest? If two teams play to a tie, so be it. Each team gets a point and tries to do better the next time out. I'm ok with the current ECAC 5 min 5v5 OT session.

If they do go to some freaking shoot-out system, I hope the college powers that be have better math skills than the NHL.

Well, because if you're working with a small sample size, it's crucial to skew a few of your results. Because... yeah.

Jim Hyla
This week is the meeting to discuss new rules.

Man, a lot of these proposals just seem like change for the sake of change.

Automatic suspensions for end of game major penalties is a step in the right direction. I would add automatic suspensions for roughing penalties in the last minute of regulation or at least for roughing after the final whistle.

The debacle at the Times Union Center between RPI and Union would have been less likely if suspensions had been handed out at game end in Troy in December.

This is alive I hope.

Most of those rules look dumb. I'm all for anything that makes Dartmouth-style post-game goonery more punishable.

I really like this one, though:

"The clarification would assess a minor penalty for delay of game to any team that either delays lining up for the ensuing faceoff or tries to “sneak” players on and off the ice as the whistle blows."

I've never understood how sneaking players onto the ice after an icing isn't a penalty.

Dafatone

I really like this one, though:

"The clarification would assess a minor penalty for delay of game to any team that either delays lining up for the ensuing faceoff or tries to “sneak” players on and off the ice as the whistle blows."

I've never understood how sneaking players onto the ice after an icing isn't a penalty.

Agreed. I was just saying the very same thing last weekend.

I think they should change the delay rule like the nfl does for icing and extend it to other things.. you ice it no line change, you hold the puck as a goalie no line change, you throw the puck ut of of your end on D no line change, you go offside no line change. reward the team that keeps the game moving, less line changes less delays.

upprdeck
I think they should change the delay rule like the nfl does for icing and extend it to other things.. you ice it no line change, you hold the puck as a goalie no line change, you throw the puck ut of of your end on D no line change, you go offside no line change. reward the team that keeps the game moving, less line changes less delays.

I like the idea of extending it, but only to those actions which are meant to produce a delay. I'd include the goalie freezing the puck in certain circumstances, but I wouldn't include going offsides. If you have an odd-man rush and the off winger is a step ahead, that's not an attempt to slow down the pace of the game -- if anything, it's being too eager in trying to keep the pace fast. You don't want to discourage that kind of offense by slapping an additional deterrent; having the play whistled dead is deterrent enough. Even in the case of the goalie freezing the puck, I think you'd want to differentiate between the puck being shot right into his pads, vs him diving on top of it. Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop." You also don't want to encourage keeping the pace up to the point that players are hacking away at a goalie's hands just in case he intends to not freeze the puck.

ftyuv

upprdeck
I think they should change the delay rule like the nfl does for icing and extend it to other things.. you ice it no line change, you hold the puck as a goalie no line change, you throw the puck ut of of your end on D no line change, you go offside no line change. reward the team that keeps the game moving, less line changes less delays.

I like the idea of extending it, but only to those actions which are meant to produce a delay. I'd include the goalie freezing the puck in certain circumstances, but I wouldn't include going offsides. If you have an odd-man rush and the off winger is a step ahead, that's not an attempt to slow down the pace of the game -- if anything, it's being too eager in trying to keep the pace fast. You don't want to discourage that kind of offense by slapping an additional deterrent; having the play whistled dead is deterrent enough. Even in the case of the goalie freezing the puck, I think you'd want to differentiate between the puck being shot right into his pads, vs him diving on top of it. Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop." You also don't want to encourage keeping the pace up to the point that players are hacking away at a goalie's hands just in case he intends to not freeze the puck.

I think not allowing a change when a goalie freezes the puck is a horrible idea. Why would you not allow the defending team a breather when the goalie covers up? I understand why they do this on icing since icing the puck is something that's always been "penalized" as a defensive strategy. But the goalie freezing the puck after t allowing a rebound is something that we praise as good play. Maybe you want to see lots of cheap goals scored off of exhausted defenders.

Yes i do. in the NHL if you clear from the D end its a penalty, thats severe, so turn into a non change.. if you dont like off sides as a non change then just the intentional offsides get that added on. the game is to pass the puck and to score. in the old days goalies rarely caught the puck they used the stick and deflected it. its not like every time the goalie covers up the puck the players are tired from extended ice time. the offense caused the goalie to cover he puck and stop the game so the reward is they get a player change. the the goalie makes a save then fine let them get a change, but if they dive or cover a puck then no change.

we are talking a bout a game where 3+ goals is a great offense and 2+ goals is a bad offense. why would scoring 1-2x more a game be a bad thing.

basketball got rid of the jump ball after every score, why cant hockey be progessive.

KeithK

ftyuv

upprdeck
I think they should change the delay rule like the nfl does for icing and extend it to other things.. you ice it no line change, you hold the puck as a goalie no line change, you throw the puck ut of of your end on D no line change, you go offside no line change. reward the team that keeps the game moving, less line changes less delays.

I like the idea of extending it, but only to those actions which are meant to produce a delay. I'd include the goalie freezing the puck in certain circumstances, but I wouldn't include going offsides. If you have an odd-man rush and the off winger is a step ahead, that's not an attempt to slow down the pace of the game -- if anything, it's being too eager in trying to keep the pace fast. You don't want to discourage that kind of offense by slapping an additional deterrent; having the play whistled dead is deterrent enough. Even in the case of the goalie freezing the puck, I think you'd want to differentiate between the puck being shot right into his pads, vs him diving on top of it. Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop." You also don't want to encourage keeping the pace up to the point that players are hacking away at a goalie's hands just in case he intends to not freeze the puck.

I think not allowing a change when a goalie freezes the puck is a horrible idea. Why would you not allow the defending team a breather when the goalie covers up? I understand why they do this on icing since icing the puck is something that's always been "penalized" as a defensive strategy. But the goalie freezing the puck after t allowing a rebound is something that we praise as good play. Maybe you want to see lots of cheap goals scored off of exhausted defenders.

I'm not completely sold on this, mind you -- I think it could be an interesting experiment. But to answer your last bit directly, I'm not sure I would categorize those as cheap goals. When a goalie is forced to freeze the puck, it's usually because the offense is doing something right (or the defense is doing something wrong). I actually think it's a bit cheap when the offense is doing a good job, getting a good cycle going, really pinned the defense back -- but then the goalie jumps 4 feet out of the crease to freeze the puck. So, am I suggesting that maybe a few more of those situations should result in goals? Sure, I'm willing to reward good offense and/or punish bad defense.

Part of my view is that I feel like goalies freeze the puck too often. If they cut back on it somewhat (significantly?), I'd be willing to revisit my views; it's all a matter of gray lines, after all. But I don't see goalies taking a high-road view of "I won't freeze the puck now, for the sake of The Game as a whole." I wouldn't expect them to.

ftyuv

I'm not completely sold on this, mind you -- I think it could be an interesting experiment. But to answer your last bit directly, I'm not sure I would categorize those as cheap goals. When a goalie is forced to freeze the puck, it's usually because the offense is doing something right (or the defense is doing something wrong). I actually think it's a bit cheap when the offense is doing a good job, getting a good cycle going, really pinned the defense back -- but then the goalie jumps 4 feet out of the crease to freeze the puck. So, am I suggesting that maybe a few more of those situations should result in goals? Sure, I'm willing to reward good offense and/or punish bad defense.

Part of my view is that I feel like goalies freeze the puck too often. If they cut back on it somewhat (significantly?), I'd be willing to revisit my views; it's all a matter of gray lines, after all. But I don't see goalies taking a high-road view of "I won't freeze the puck now, for the sake of The Game as a whole." I wouldn't expect them to.

What if the no line change disadvantage only kicks in if the goalie freezes the puck outside the crease?

David Harding

ftyuv

I'm not completely sold on this, mind you -- I think it could be an interesting experiment. But to answer your last bit directly, I'm not sure I would categorize those as cheap goals. When a goalie is forced to freeze the puck, it's usually because the offense is doing something right (or the defense is doing something wrong). I actually think it's a bit cheap when the offense is doing a good job, getting a good cycle going, really pinned the defense back -- but then the goalie jumps 4 feet out of the crease to freeze the puck. So, am I suggesting that maybe a few more of those situations should result in goals? Sure, I'm willing to reward good offense and/or punish bad defense.

Part of my view is that I feel like goalies freeze the puck too often. If they cut back on it somewhat (significantly?), I'd be willing to revisit my views; it's all a matter of gray lines, after all. But I don't see goalies taking a high-road view of "I won't freeze the puck now, for the sake of The Game as a whole." I wouldn't expect them to.

What if the no line change disadvantage only kicks in if the goalie freezes the puck outside the crease?

I'd be hesitant to make that be the only criterion, because there are times that the goalie should be out of the crease to cut an angle. If he does, and the shot goes right into his chest, it seems unfair to punish the D or force him to release the puck.

ftyuv
Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop."

In general, it's bad to add additional judgment calls to the officials' already large load.

But I know what you're getting at, so I'd introduce the following (judgment) language: if the goalie freezes the puck without "significant peril from a nearby opposing player," then the defending team doesn't get a line change. That incentivizes the goalie to get the puck back into play but doesn't unduly burden him if an opposing player is on top of him. If a forward is good enough to nearly find the 5-hole and the goalie has to sit on it for fear of knocking it into his own goal, then the attacking team gains an advantage but not as strong as a delay penalty.

Does the game really need any changes? Hockey seems pretty good as-is.

Trotsky

ftyuv
Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop."

In general, it's bad to add additional judgment calls to the officials' already large load.

But I know what you're getting at, so I'd introduce the following (judgment) language: if the goalie freezes the puck without "significant peril from a nearby opposing player," then the defending team doesn't get a line change. That incentivizes the goalie to get the puck back into play but doesn't unduly burden him if an opposing player is on top of him. If a forward is good enough to nearly find the 5-hole and the goalie has to sit on it for fear of knocking it into his own goal, then the attacking team gains an advantage but not as strong as a delay penalty.

From the chatter I think I understand the idea a little better and it's not as ridiculous as I first thought (no change any time the goalie makes a save and holds on). While Greg's suggested rule miight be workable in theory I also don't like adding more subjectivity. You could easily see radically different interpretations either from ref to ref (especially initially) or year to year.

if the goal is to try to increase offense I think there are probably better ways to do it.

Kyle Rose
Does the game really need any changes? Hockey seems pretty good as-is.

I pretty much agree.

Trotsky

ftyuv
Maybe have wording like "if the goalie freezes the puck except as part of making a stop, including freezing a puck which has dropped to the ice immediately following a stop."

In general, it's bad to add additional judgment calls to the officials' already large load.

But I know what you're getting at, so I'd introduce the following (judgment) language: if the goalie freezes the puck without "significant peril from a nearby opposing player," then the defending team doesn't get a line change. That incentivizes the goalie to get the puck back into play but doesn't unduly burden him if an opposing player is on top of him. If a forward is good enough to nearly find the 5-hole and the goalie has to sit on it for fear of knocking it into his own goal, then the attacking team gains an advantage but not as strong as a delay penalty.

I agree on both accounts.

KeithK
if the goal is to try to increase offense I think there are probably better ways to do it.

That I agree with, and I don't even agree we need to increase offense necessarily. But if I had two gripes about the game, the second would be these freezes that stop the flow of an otherwise great-flowing game. On the other hand, the first gripe would be bad calls made by refs who are forced to make subjective decisions in a high-paced game, so there's definitely the case to be made that adding more subjectivity for the sake of more flow would be a net-negative.

Kyle Rose
Does [transportation] really need any changes? [Horse-draw carriages] seem pretty good as-is.

To hell with shootouts. Instead, every 5 minutes in OT you add another puck to the ice. Multi-puck!

French Rage
To hell with shootouts. Instead, every 5 minutes in OT you add another puck to the ice. Multi-puck!

video: [www.youtube.com]

French Rage
To hell with shootouts. Instead, every 5 minutes in OT you add another puck to the ice. Multi-puck!

Make it really fun, no offsides, no icing.

Towerroad

French Rage
To hell with shootouts. Instead, every 5 minutes in OT you add another puck to the ice. Multi-puck!

Make it really fun, no offsides, no icing.

This is getting ridiculous.

I mean, really, how can you leave out the strobe lights?

ftyuv

Kyle Rose
Does [transportation] really need any changes? [Horse-draw carriages] seem pretty good as-is.

Yes, I know you're joking, but the punchline isn't apt: no one came along and, by diktat, took away everyone's horse and buggy and replaced it with a car: cars won in the marketplace because they were better and people demanded them. If someone wants some game other than hockey (let's call it "suckey", let them set up their own suckey league and see if it wins fans away from existing leagues. Otherwise, IMO there's got to be a really high standard for screwing with the rules of the game.

Kyle Rose

ftyuv

Kyle Rose
Does [transportation] really need any changes? [Horse-draw carriages] seem pretty good as-is.

Yes, I know you're joking, but the punchline isn't apt: no one came along and, by diktat, took away everyone's horse and buggy and replaced it with a car: cars won in the marketplace because they were better and people demanded them. If someone wants some game other than hockey (let's call it "suckey", let them set up their own suckey league and see if it wins fans away from existing leagues. Otherwise, IMO there's got to be a really high standard for screwing with the rules of the game.

Are you really suggesting that (a) the rules of college hockey are absolutely perfect, don't need any tweaks at all, and will never need them, and (b) if they weren't, the proper way to tweak a rule is to set up a parallel league, which should then try to compete solely on the merit of a relatively minor distinction and get schools to either create two hockey teams or switch entirely to this league? I really hope that this idea is as serious as my strobe-light proposal above.

Carriages and cars are accidental (so to speak) tools for transportation, so their form is arbitrary and ever-evolving in the service of that goal.

Hockey OTOH simply is hockey. It is its own essence. There are secondary goals (safety, entertainment, 19th century social values of Muscular Christianity to keep the prole workforce healthy and distracted), but there is no ultimate goal except itself.

ftyuv

Kyle Rose

ftyuv

Kyle Rose
Does [transportation] really need any changes? [Horse-draw carriages] seem pretty good as-is.

Yes, I know you're joking, but the punchline isn't apt: no one came along and, by diktat, took away everyone's horse and buggy and replaced it with a car: cars won in the marketplace because they were better and people demanded them. If someone wants some game other than hockey (let's call it "suckey", let them set up their own suckey league and see if it wins fans away from existing leagues. Otherwise, IMO there's got to be a really high standard for screwing with the rules of the game.

Are you really suggesting that (a) the rules of college hockey are absolutely perfect, don't need any tweaks at all, and will never need them, and (b) if they weren't, the proper way to tweak a rule is to set up a parallel league, which should then try to compete solely on the merit of a relatively minor distinction and get schools to either create two hockey teams or switch entirely to this league? I really hope that this idea is as serious as my strobe-light proposal above.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting that. But I don't really get the notion of screwing with the basic rules of the game to generate more goals. If people don't like watching hockey because there isn't enough scoring, they should go watch a different fucking game and stop screwing with the one I like. Yeah, money means that the NHL is always going to tweak things to chase more eyeballs, but that doesn't mean college teams need to follow suit: they've successfully managed to avoid the shootout abomination, so it can be done.

Kyle Rose

ftyuv

Kyle Rose

ftyuv

Kyle Rose
Does [transportation] really need any changes? [Horse-draw carriages] seem pretty good as-is.

Yes, I know you're joking, but the punchline isn't apt: no one came along and, by diktat, took away everyone's horse and buggy and replaced it with a car: cars won in the marketplace because they were better and people demanded them. If someone wants some game other than hockey (let's call it "suckey", let them set up their own suckey league and see if it wins fans away from existing leagues. Otherwise, IMO there's got to be a really high standard for screwing with the rules of the game.

Are you really suggesting that (a) the rules of college hockey are absolutely perfect, don't need any tweaks at all, and will never need them, and (b) if they weren't, the proper way to tweak a rule is to set up a parallel league, which should then try to compete solely on the merit of a relatively minor distinction and get schools to either create two hockey teams or switch entirely to this league? I really hope that this idea is as serious as my strobe-light proposal above.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting that. But I don't really get the notion of screwing with the basic rules of the game to generate more goals.

Okay. But just so we're clear, that's not what I was suggesting.

these basic hockey rules are already far different than the basic hockey rules of even 10-20 years ago..