Potential NCAA Rule Changes

[KeithK]

Some of these rules are just crazy, btw.

Further punishing penalized teams by not allowing them to change players before the start of the penalty and to make them kill the entire length of minor and double-minor penalties. The latter proposal didn't have much support, Karr said.

Why not just award a penalty shot for every infraction. You'd score just about as often as you would with no changes and no icing during a short handed situation and it would be more exciting!

I shouldn't give these idiots ideas.

[Jim Hyla]

I don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

[KeithK]

I don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

[Josh '99]

Although I go back and forth on the two-line pass rule.  Allowing two-line passes certainly increases the pace of the game, but it undoubtedly has also significantly increased injuries.

How so?  I've never heard anyone say that before.

[Ronald '09]

Although I go back and forth on the two-line pass rule.  Allowing two-line passes certainly increases the pace of the game, but it undoubtedly has also significantly increased injuries.

How so?  I've never heard anyone say that before.

When a two line pass is made, defenders come from further away than shorter passes.  If that pass is along the boards, it increases collisions along the boards with players coming in from further distances.  It would be really difficult to quantify the effect, and hockey's a rough game, so I'm not saying that they should make two line passes illegal, but I do think there's probably more injuries when these passes are allowed.  It's really the same argument as the touch vs. no touch icing debate.

[Josh '99]

Although I go back and forth on the two-line pass rule.  Allowing two-line passes certainly increases the pace of the game, but it undoubtedly has also significantly increased injuries.

How so?  I've never heard anyone say that before.

When a two line pass is made, defenders come from further away than shorter passes.  If that pass is along the boards, it increases collisions along the boards with players coming in from further distances.  It would be really difficult to quantify the effect, and hockey's a rough game, so I'm not saying that they should make two line passes illegal, but I do think there's probably more injuries when these passes are allowed.  It's really the same argument as the touch vs. no touch icing debate.

I guess that's possible, but to be honest this is the first I've heard of safety concerns being one of the reasons for the two-line pass rule (as opposed to no-touch icing where safety is clearly the motivator), rather than it just being a "don't be way ahead of the play" offsides-type rule.

[Jim Hyla]

Although I go back and forth on the two-line pass rule.  Allowing two-line passes certainly increases the pace of the game, but it undoubtedly has also significantly increased injuries.

How so?  I've never heard anyone say that before.

When a two line pass is made, defenders come from further away than shorter passes.  If that pass is along the boards, it increases collisions along the boards with players coming in from further distances.  It would be really difficult to quantify the effect, and hockey's a rough game, so I'm not saying that they should make two line passes illegal, but I do think there's probably more injuries when these passes are allowed.  It's really the same argument as the touch vs. no touch icing debate.

I think the problem is trying to put together all these statements. Undoubtedly, really difficult, and probably are different statements. Your first statement was probably :-D too strong.

[Jim Hyla]

I don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

I think the first part of your statement is agreeing with me, correct? In regards to level playing field, then you should just throw the names in a hat and pull them out randomly. Any seeding you do eliminates a level playing field, the only question is how much, not if. I just happen to want it less level than you, to try and get the "best" teams there at the end. However the current seeding that you like is still not level.

I don't know how you can say "it's about money, pure and simple". We all agree that they do like money, but even North Dakota said they liked the idea of going somewhere where there would be a lot of enthusiasm. That's certainly not the regionals that I've been to.

[polar]

I don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

I think the first part of your statement is agreeing with me, correct? In regards to level playing field, then you should just throw the names in a hat and pull them out randomly. Any seeding you do eliminates a level playing field, the only question is how much, not if. I just happen to want it less level than you, to try and get the "best" teams there at the end. However the current seeding that you like is still not level.

I don't know how you can say "it's about money, pure and simple". We all agree that they do like money, but even North Dakota said they liked the idea of going somewhere where there would be a lot of enthusiasm. That's certainly not the regionals that I've been to.

Here's a thought: why not just have the regionals at smaller venues? The big problem I've seen as far as atmosphere is that you're trying to fill an AHL stadium (at least) with four fanbases that on average pull in about 4,000 fans. Would it be feasible to host these games at a neutral college site? Sell tickets to only the game people care about? But then, we're talking about money lost in ticket sales again and it's not worth bringing up.

I just keep going back to a question of what needs fixing, for all of this. Single-elimination is how every NCAA sport works for championships, with the exceptions of baseball, softball, and D-1 football. The tournaments are exciting because you can have underdog teams come from nowhere to play for national titles. Why should hockey be an exception, painful as a first-round loss to a worse team on paper is?

And if they make icing illegal during penalty kills, I will break something.

[KeithK]

I don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

I think the first part of your statement is agreeing with me, correct? In regards to level playing field, then you should just throw the names in a hat and pull them out randomly. Any seeding you do eliminates a level playing field, the only question is how much, not if. I just happen to want it less level than you, to try and get the "best" teams there at the end. However the current seeding that you like is still not level.

I don't know how you can say "it's about money, pure and simple". We all agree that they do like money, but even North Dakota said they liked the idea of going somewhere where there would be a lot of enthusiasm. That's certainly not the regionals that I've been to.

Yes, I was agreeing with you to some degree.  It happens from time to time :-).

The current seeding isn't a 100% level playing field but it's about as level as you can get because someone has to have last line change (barring rule changes for that) and someone has to play the weakest team in the field. So it doesn't bother me.

I still think the right way to ensure that the best teams make it to the later rounds of the tournament (if this is a priority) is to not let the less worthy teams in the tournament. Don't offer the teams that aren't good enough the chance to play for the national championship. But that gets back to certain other of my opinions that I've pontificated on here plenty of times :-).

I'm not saying that teams don't want to play in front of enthusiastic crowds. But in any decision process I am convinced that this would be very much secondary to the financial. If the important thing was having the arenas full of fans at the regionals then why not offer all students of the participating teams dirt cheap tickets (or free for that matter)? I guarantee that that would boost attendance in any case where the game is somewhat close to the schools in question. But thet'd never consider this for the same reason that the ECAC insists on charging students for playoff tickets in the QFs even at schools where there is free student admission, even knowing that this tends to depress crowd size.

[KeithK]

Here's a thought: why not just have the regionals at smaller venues? The big problem I've seen as far as atmosphere is that you're trying to fill an AHL stadium (at least) with four fanbases that on average pull in about 4,000 fans. Would it be feasible to host these games at a neutral college site? Sell tickets to only the game people care about? But then, we're talking about money lost in ticket sales again and it's not worth bringing up.

This sounds good in the abstract. But to pull it off you have to have a non-participating school step up and be willing to host a tournament event in which they're team is not participating. What incentive is there unless the NCAA gives them a big chunk of the gate? It also means the host school couldn't plan for this event in advance, since you couldn't choose sites until tournament selection. I suspect pulling off a regional on one or two week's notice would be extremely difficult.

[Jim Hyla]

I don't think most of us would disagree with the initial ECACs being best of 3 at home sites. We think they are exciting and generally get the best teams, at the moment, to the semis. So why not for the NCAAs? The problem seems to me to be that for the leagues we have a round robin season to base seedings on.

For the NCAAs, well you get out what you put in, and most think that what is currently put in is OK but not the best. However, I still like the 2 of 3 idea, trying to get the best teams to the semis.

The regionals are, watch your team and not the other game, so why have them? No one cares to go to a regional site, like they do for the finals.

The league round robin makes all the difference.  The league schedule is a very fair way of ranking the teams. The PWR just doesn't compare. (Neither would KRACH IMO, even if it is superior mathematically.)  Once you get to the tournament I want everyone to be on a level playing field.  Last line changes for higher seed is fine - someone has to have the last change. But that's it.

This idea is about money, pure and simple. It'll happen if the powers that be decide it will generate sufficiently greater revenue to overcome the negative effects on competitive balance that are being presented as positive here. The NCAA has been moving away from these kinds of imbalances for many years now (in hockey). I suppose a change in that trend could simply reflect different opinions of the folks in charge now but I think it's just money.

I think the first part of your statement is agreeing with me, correct? In regards to level playing field, then you should just throw the names in a hat and pull them out randomly. Any seeding you do eliminates a level playing field, the only question is how much, not if. I just happen to want it less level than you, to try and get the "best" teams there at the end. However the current seeding that you like is still not level.

I don't know how you can say "it's about money, pure and simple". We all agree that they do like money, but even North Dakota said they liked the idea of going somewhere where there would be a lot of enthusiasm. That's certainly not the regionals that I've been to.

Yes, I was agreeing with you to some degree.  It happens from time to time :-).

The current seeding isn't a 100% level playing field but it's about as level as you can get because someone has to have last line change (barring rule changes for that) and someone has to play the weakest team in the field. So it doesn't bother me.

I still think the right way to ensure that the best teams make it to the later rounds of the tournament (if this is a priority) is to not let the less worthy teams in the tournament. Don't offer the teams that aren't good enough the chance to play for the national championship. But that gets back to certain other of my opinions that I've pontificated on here plenty of times :-).

I'm not saying that teams don't want to play in front of enthusiastic crowds. But in any decision process I am convinced that this would be very much secondary to the financial. If the important thing was having the arenas full of fans at the regionals then why not offer all students of the participating teams dirt cheap tickets (or free for that matter)? I guarantee that that would boost attendance in any case where the game is somewhat close to the schools in question. But thet'd never consider this for the same reason that the ECAC insists on charging students for playoff tickets in the QFs even at schools where there is free student admission, even knowing that this tends to depress crowd size.

So, you're saying that if the games were free and in Worcester, then Harvard fans would fill up the arena.::wow:::-D

[Roy 82]

And if they make icing illegal during penalty kills, I will break something.

Actually, I always thought that no-icing PKs was a good idea. Why reward a team with the ability to play bad defense when on a PK?

I also think that a penalty shot should be followed up by a Power Play if the shooter does not score.

Does this make me a bad person?::innocent::

[ftyuv]

And if they make icing illegal during penalty kills, I will break something.

Actually, I always thought that no-icing PKs was a good idea. Why reward a team with the ability to play bad defense when on a PK?

I also think that a penalty shot should be followed up by a Power Play if the shooter does not score.

Does this make me a bad person?::innocent::

PPs already have, what, about 30% conversion rates? Is that not good enough? If you had no-icing PKs, along with the rule that if you ice you can't change out (which I think is a good rule), then it'd be extremely difficult for the defense to get a change, and PP goals would shoot through the roof. Some may think that makes for good hockey, but I don't.

I'm up in the air about a penalty shot being followed up by a PP... but if that's not enacted, I definitely think teams should get the choice to take a PP instead of the penalty shot.

[Trotsky]

As long as we're changing rules, I've always thought when a team scores on a delayed penalty while already up a man, the prior penalty should come off the board.

How about no icing only on majors?