It's always fun to propose changes you think would make the NHL a better, more entertaining league. Here are eight bold rule changes THN.com thinks the league should discuss at the next GM meetings.
The NHL's annual meetings with GMs finished on Wednesday in Manaplan, Fla., and it's always intriguing to hear what they discussed.
This week, they discussed the video review process, goaltender interference, the new playoff salary cap, permitting 19-year-old CHL players to play in the AHL, neck guards and more.
Most hockey figures will go out of their way to tell you they think hockey is in a great spot right now. NHL Department of Player Safety boss George Parros even said so this week.
But there's always room for improvement, and throwing out some ideas makes for great discussion and debate.
So, how would we change the NHL? We polled some THN writers and editors, and we've come up with eight propositions. In no particular order:
1. The 'Eye-In-The-Sky' Official
This is an idea we have championed for years now, and it's starting to get traction.
Basically, this change would place an NHL official in the stands, able to whistle down plays and call penalties that on-ice officials have missed.
It would take some time to get accustomed to this change, but ultimately, the speed of the game means on-ice officials will miss calls here and there. Having an 'eye-in-the-sky' official would essentially be insurance that every call is called correctly.
2. Changing NHL's Points System And Playoff Seedings
Giving teams that win in regulation time an extra point would reward them for playing the game in its purest 5-on-5 form.
Changing the playoff format to rank teams in each conference first through eighth strictly by their point total would result in a fairer system that rewards teams for playing a strong regular season.
The current format has the second and third teams in each division playing each other in the first round, and the second round features the division finals. When one division is getting far more points than the other in the conference – looking at you, Central and Pacific – we're seeing two Cup contenders likely facing off in the first round instead of waiting to see them in the second and third rounds.
We know why the NHL wants to keep the system as-is – it creates more parity in the league – but we believe teams would welcome these changes. These two changes have been discussed for what feels like forever, but that's because they merit consideration.
3. More Overtime, More Overtime Players
The NHL's 3-on-3, five-minute overtime system has been successful in mitigating the number of games decided in shootouts.
Last season, 71.6 percent of games that headed to overtime ended before the shootout, which is a new record. This season, it's at 64.6 percent, which is still far higher than the original 4-on-4 overtime, which saw fewer than half of overtime games ending before the shootout.
Most people would say that's a good thing that we're seeing fewer shootouts with this system. But if we want a solution that's closer to 5-on-5, the league should extend overtime by five minutes and add another player to each side, making it 4-on-4 again.
Currently, 3-on-3 hockey for five minutes of overtime is either a series of 2-on-1 rushes or a series of players regrouping at center ice. But while coaches could gum up the game if they had a fourth player on the ice, that would at least provide a more team-based way to decide games.
4. The Over-And-Back Rule
This is a change adopted by the Champions League – and it makes a lot of sense to us.
Preventing players with the puck from retreating into the neutral zone during overtime puts more pressure on them to do something with their possession time rather than make the safe, but boring, play their coaches want.
Players would have to make smarter, more aggressive plays, or suffer the consequences.
5. The 'Jailbreak' Rule
This one is a PWHL rule where a shorthanded team can end its penalty kill by scoring. This rule is popular with NHL players, and it's easy to see why. The game isn't being changed fundamentally, but it would encourage teams to have more star-level players killing penalties. And that would be a win for the game as it tries to market star players' impact on the sport.
6. The 'Gold Plan'
Adam Gold first presented this idea in 2012 at an analytics conference, and the PWHL adopted it ahead of its inaugural season.
Some NHL fans don't like seeing teams embrace the tank and get a top draft pick by losing as much as possible.
With the Gold Plan, teams would need to be as competitive as possible after being eliminated from Stanley Cup playoff contention. Those with the most points after elimination would receive the top draft picks.
Teams go the tank route because it's the most proven way to acquire generational players that are otherwise unavailable to them in this system. But if you make this significant tweak to the draft order system, suddenly it would be crucial to be competitive even after a team misses the playoffs. And that's the fun thing to do.
7. The 'Larry Bird Rule'
This change would allow NHL teams to re-sign players they've drafted and developed by going over the salary cap limit. This is what the NBA does. It rewards teams for drafting and developing talent rather than poaching them from other teams.
Teams wouldn't be forced to go over their internal cap under this new rule change, and there would still be a different maximum for players with "Bird rights."
But in this change, teams would have the option to give more money to talent they've partnered up with for the grand majority of a player's career instead of losing them. That's a win for players and for teams that build their roster the right way.
8. Player Discipline Penalties
In this rule change, an offending NHL player who has injured another player would have to sit on the sidelines as long as the player they've injured.
For example, in this system, Anaheim Ducks defenseman Radko Gudas would've had to sit out the rest of the regular season after he recently kneed Toronto Maple Leafs star center Auston Matthews, forcing him out of the rest of the campaign.
That seems like a more just penalty than the NHL's current system of justice. And there's no room to interpret supplemental discipline. You're out as long as the player you injured.
For action-packed issues, access to the entire magazine archive and a free issue, subscribe to The Hockey News at THN.com/free. Get the latest news and trending stories by subscribing to our newsletter here. And share your thoughts by commenting below the article on THN.com or creating your own post in our community forum.