I can't believe the topic is back being discussed, but alas, it is.
And you think I'd learn by now that nothing said or done by NHL executives should ever surprise.
But, when vice-president of blind dart throwing Colin Campbell tosses out the notion that when the G.M.'s re-convene in February they will seriously discuss the merits of switching to larger nets, I can't help but scratch my head at the sheer stupidity of some people in charge making a mockery of the league.
I mean, have you seen these prototypes? They look like giant spider webs stretched out on flexible poles.
They would be about 13 percent larger than the current nets in the NHL and the theory is they would increase scoring.
WHY?
Hasn't scoring increased enough?
In the last season before the lockout, the league averaged five goals a game. Last season, you remember - the over-adjudicated season that frequently had 20-25 power plays per game - that average increased to 6.1 goals per game.
Through the first thirty-some games this year, that average has "dipped" to 6.0.
OH NO! CALL IN THE AUTHORITIES! SCORING IS DOWN IN THE NHL BY ONE-TENTH OF A GOAL! TIME TO PANIC AND COMPLETELY CHANGE THE GAME! LET'S MAKE BIGGER NETS!
Enough already.
It's one thing to change rules to open the game up and give it more flow, it's another entirely to change the basic fabric of the game and turn it into a freaking side show.
Who the hell wants to watch 10-9 hockey games? Is that part of what these scientific polls of fans the NHL supposedly conducts suggests?
Let's turn the NHL into indoor lacrosse! How's that working as a viable sport in both the U.S. and Canada?
I speak to fans all the time, whether it's through e-mail, in person, on the radio, at games, whatever. Not one has suggested the game would be better if scoring went through the roof.
But that's what bigger nets would do.
And the players, they can't stand the idea either.
Here are some quotes from the Flyers locker room on the topic:
"I'm against it. Having more scoring chances is fine, but don't change the game by adding bigger nets. I think we have a pretty good game right now. Some nights it's 8-4 some nights it's 2-1. I think it's pretty good and I like watching it. It's pretty entertaining. I don't know why they would mess with it." - R.J. Umberger.
"I hope they don't do it. This isn't soccer. I think the nets are fine. There's plenty of scoring after the changes made following the lockout. Changing the nets is unnecessary. What do they want 16-15 games? I think lower scoring games are just as competitive and equally entertaining." - Randy Jones
"Be smart. If you start making the nets bigger, the size of goalies comes back into play. What are you going to do, eliminate 5-foot-8, 5-foot-9, 5-foot-10 goalies? Everybody's going to want bigger goalies like in the '90s. I think that's an extreme disadvantage to shorter people. You don't pay attention to the talent level of goalies, you just want to add more goals. How many more goals do they need? I don't know what they're doing. I like the fact that they're trying to be creative and come up with new ideas, but i don't like that they're making a mockery of the sport. You have hundreds of records that were set on one standard. You can't make it a circus." - Robert Esche
"I don't know why they want more goals. Do they think it'll make the game better if it's 9-8? I don't know anybody who wants to play like that. What, do they want (Wayne) Gretzky to lose all his records? It would change the whole game - systems and everything. Goalies won't have a chance to stop the puck either. I can't believe they're serious about this." - Antero Niittymaki
Now, it's tough to just take what Flyers players are saying about this topic, especially since they have allowed a league-high 126 goals in 33 games with normal nets, but, it's not just them that have complained.
"Obviously I'm not too crazy about it. There are a lot of goals being scored. How many more goals do we need If 85 goals in one night (in 11 games two nights ago) aren't putting people in the stands, then it's not the goal-scoring. A 15-12 game? It almost goes the other way and gets a little ridiculous. I would probably be more for it and more understanding if it was 2-1 every night the way it was pre-lockout. But it's just not like that any more. It's a hard game and there are a lot of goals being scored. Even if it's a 3-2, 2-1 game, it's not the same 3-2 game it was with 15 shots per team and no power plays. There are a lot of chances. If it's a 2-1 game now, there's probably a lot of posts and a lot of missed chances and a lot of good saves.I don't see (bigger nets) being the solution to putting butts in the seats." - Toronto goalie Andrew Raycroft to the Toronto Sun.
"We've made a lot of changes and it hasn't even been a year and a half post-lockout. You can't measure off of that, it's not fair. I think we've made great changes, we've got a great product, things are moving in the right direction economically. I think we can bare to stand pat a bit in terms of changes to the game. We have to relax a little bit, let this game grow and not screw it up." - Dallas goalie Marty Turco to the Canadian Press.
Of course, there are those who say changes in other sports have increased scoring. Like changing the strike zone in baseball. Or being more strict on defensive backs in coverage in football. Or moving the three-point arc closer in basketball.
To which I say, not a one compares to changing the size of the nets.
You want comparisons for those sports, how about this....
In baseball, move the outfield fences in 13percent. That means in most ball parks, were 400 feet to straight away centerfield is the norm, the wall would be 348 feet from home. in the corners, which are, on average, 330 feet, they would now be about 287 feet from home.
You think Barry Bonds' single season home run record of 73 would last long? Not a chance. But, doing that might chase steroids out of baseball because everyone will be able to hit homers... hmmm.
In football, decrease the length of a first down by 13 percent. This means, teams only have to go 8.7 yards for each first down. So much for third and one and fourth and one as we now know it, eh?
In basketball, move the foul line 13 percent closer to the net. All right, this still wouldn't help Shaq...
But, you understand the point. It's one thing to tweak rules to try to enhance the game, but overhauling the basics of a sport because you think it'll put more rear ends in seats is faulty, faulty logic.
You want to increase attendance and interest? Re-examine the NHL marketing department, not the size of the nets.
Join the Discussion:
»