New York Rangers Fans Speak: How to Improve the NHL
Mandatory Credit: Matt Kartozian-USA TODAY Sports
In our third Blue Line Station New York Rangers Roundtable discussion, we look at how the NHL can improve in quality.
We all love the NHL and the New York Rangers, but anyone can admit that there are areas the NHL can improve in. The NHL continues to be a quality product that is worth watching on any given night, but little changes can help the sport tremendously.
Each Blue Line Station writer had their own idea of how to improve the league, so five of us teamed up to present our proposals. There are other ideas that could work such as improving the playoff system, but we feel most passionate about the ideas presented ahead.
Without further adieu, click through the slides for our ideas about how to improve the NHL. Let us know who you agree/disagree with!
Mandatory Credit: Jerome Miron-USA TODAY Sports
Brandon Cohen-Penalty Changes:
One idea of mine to improve the NHL includes changing the playoff system, but that was already covered. Rather than speaking further about that, let’s discuss some in-game action. The NHL could be greatly improved by some changes regarding penalties.
We all know I do not support fighting, so what I propose is if the NHL will not ban fighting, they can increase the penalty for fights. The NHL should enforcer a new rule that states that if a player gets in a fight, they are ejected from the game. Fighting would not be an automatic suspension or anything, but only an ejection from the game.
This would effectively remove enforcers from the sport of hockey, prioritizing skill players instead.
A backup idea is changing the delay of game penalty, which is unfair to players simply making mistakes, from two minutes long to one minute long. It would still punish guilty parties, while not being as harsh.
Mandatory Credit: Jerome Miron-USA TODAY Sports
Scott Austin- Eliminating Enforcers Through Creativity
Our social media guru has an idea! What would it take for the league to abandon the “goon” or “enforcer” ideology altogether? Dangerous hits still seem to occur way too often, and while suspensions are given out to repeat offenders, it’s not doing much to deter them from making the same hits time and again.
But what if an opposing team was able to choose who served time for that nasty hit? No one cares if a bottom tier player is out of the lineup; in fact, it makes some teams better. So, if a star player had to sit for the actions of an irresponsible player, maybe it could curb those intentional dirty hits for good.
For example, if Andrew Shaw of the Canadiens gets a two-game suspension for a hit and Montreal plays Toronto then Boston next, then Toronto can choose Carey Price to serve the suspension instead of Shaw.
Similarly, Boston could choose one of point leader Max Pacioretty or top defensemen Shea Weber to sit that game. Montreal- or any team for that matter- wouldn’t want to bench a franchise player in favor another player making reckless hits.
Mandatory Credit: Charles LeClaire-USA TODAY Sports
Tim Haggerty- Expand The Ice
The NHL currently plays on an ice surface measured at 200 feet by 85 feet. Olympic play is played on a 200 foot by 100 foot surface, adding 15 feet in width. The result is more creative offense and an utter nightmare for defensemen. The neutral zone is also eight feet larger, leaving your own zone four feet shorter.
The NHL has tried a myriad of things to allow for more scoring and excitement in games. They made the goalie pads smaller, and smaller. If more scoring is what they want, hindering the play of the goalies isn’t the way to go about it. If the NHL could expand the rink to Olympic sizing, the results would do great things for the league.
Teams that play a more offensive style would benefit tremendously, however teams that struggle on defense would have big issues to deal with. The change would put more pressure on defensemen to be perfect; any mistake they make would be amplified.
The New York Rangers would score a lot more, but would need more help from the goaltending if they wanted to stay afloat. However, it’s a 30, soon to be 31, team league. The change would be great for the league as a whole and I would love to see it.
Mandatory Credit: Christopher Hanewinckel-USA TODAY Sports
Michael Monti- Eliminate The Shootout
The 2005-06 season was the debut of the shootout, and since then has been a deciding factor in some great games.
The New York Rangers missed the playoffs during the 2009-10 season after a shootout loss to the Philadelphia Flyers, on the last game of the season. To add insult to injury, the Flyers would go on to the Stanley Cup final, only to lose to the Blackhawks in overtime of game six. It even effected the New Jersey Devils on 2015 when they didn’t will a single shootout all season.
The NHL did a good job with limiting the shootout last season by changing the overtime period to 3-on-3, instead of 4-on-4. In fact, during the 2015-16 Season, 38.9 percent went to the shootout. Compare it to the 2014-15 season when 55.2 percent of games went to the shootout. (source)
They could change this stat even more. Instead of going straight to the 3-on-3 at the start of overtime, why not do a five minute 4-on-4 overtime period, then, if no one wins during the 4-on-4, continuous 3-on-3 until there is a winner. The shootout was cool at first, but now eliminating it is the best choice.
Mandatory Credit: Adam Hunger-USA TODAY Sports
George Ruggiero- Change The Standings
A much needed change for the NHL is one of the scoring system. Currently, a win, at any point, is worth two points; a loss in overtime still gains a point; and a regulation loss gets nothing. I propose the NHL change the system to one in which a regulation win is worth three points, an overtime win is worth two points, a shootout win is worth only one point, and a loss from any point is worth nothing.
With the system in place, teams have no real fear of going into an overtime situation until late in the season, when every point starts to count a little bit more. Take the Rangers’ Saturday matinee against the Red Wings for example.
With all of two and a half minutes remaining, plenty of time to score, the teams seemed to slow down their approaches and hold out for overtime. This caused that snoozefest to get even more boring.
Had the scoring system be different, the teams would always have more to play for, because dropping up to two points even with a win could be devastating, whereas only dropping a point is less detrimental.
More from Blue Line Station
This article originally appeared on 
