After thinking about the low television ratings the NHL is suffering through, again, Steve Ovadia has a different suggestion:
I've suggested it before, and I'll suggest it again: the NHL should think about less forwards. Nine forwards would make it easier to know players and to follow a game's subtle coaching shifts. It would also let teams pay players more, since the pot could be the same, just divided between less people.How many teams need to roll four lines? How much more exciting would the game be if coaches knew they needed each line to be good for 15-20 minutes? And for fans, it's that much easier to get to know the players and the lines. Besides, the defensemen have to rotate in three pairs. Why should the forwards have it so easy?
Less forwards mean more quality face time. It's something for the NHL to consider.
Before I get to the reason why I think this would be a good idea, I'll address just two reasons why it won't happen.
First, coaches will scream bloody murder because they'll have less flexibility, and less control over the game. No way somebody like Ken Hitchcock would want to see something like this come to pass.
Second, fewer players means fewer union members, so there isn't a chance that the players will go for it. Imagine yourself as a team's union rep, and you're asked to defend this change. Tell me you want to look somebody in the eye who you know is going to wind up in the AHL or out of hockey entirely. I don't think anybody wants that job coming out of a lockout that was a loser for the players all around.
Then again, on the plus side, fewer players means more ice time. More ice time means fatigue comes quicker, and mismatches occur more often, possibly leading to more even strength scoring, which is something we'd all rather see than the parade to the penalty box we watched earlier this season.
When I think of all the possible ways to increase even strength scoring, the least appealing option on the list is ‘more goals due to fatigue.’ Those are the goals you get in the playoffs in the second and third OT, and they’re never pretty. Do you really want to see more garbage goals?
I’m not sure that ‘more fatigue’ means ‘less penalties’ either. We might see more penalties with less players-per-team.
Ooh, this is a great idea. I would kill to see Brad Isbister and Marty Reasoner play more.
I agree with Ben. Tired players = less skating = lazy penalties.
I hate people who try to end hockey debates with “Have you ever played the game?” but has Steve Ovadia ever played the game? Playing defence is far less physically demanding than playing forward because you aren’t going hard up and down the ice-defencemen typically just cruise up to the blueline, whereas good forwards are skating hard both ways.
Crazy idea. Can’t work.
Perhaps splitting hairs, but I think playing defense is more physically demanding, but at the same time is less tiring because you generally skate less. You’re more tired in-game playing forward, but playing d takes longer to recover from post-game. Just my 2c.
Good idea.
Remember, they used to play with roster of 7 or 8 players.
Other benefits:
- less talent dilution
- fewer defensive specialists with limited icetime
I can’t see this happening unless it is part of a negotiated expansion, where the league splits the expansion fees with the PA. If roster size drops by 3 and they add 4 teams then the league roster size goes from 690 to 680. More teams might run with max. rosters so there might be a net gain in players.