For crying out loud. Leave the freaking game alone. The game is not the problem. Why does everyone want to keep mucking things up? I’m so tired of hockey being messed with.

Posted by Jennifer on 12/31/07 at 03:13 PM ET

I don’t see this suggestion as messing with the game, unlike say, the shootout.  But I still disagree.  He says there’s too many games, but then wants to add more?

Posted by K24 from NYC on 12/31/07 at 03:57 PM ET

Or, in other words:

1. Force the Stanley Cup champs to have an even shorter offseason with a road trip to Europe tossed in, ensuring that the normal hangover is even worse at the beginning of the season.

2.  Have the two best teams play one more meaningless game to win a trophy neither cares about when compared to the Stanley Cup.  It’s nice to get, I suppose, but more of an extra trinket when compared to the main prize.

3.  Since there are too many games, let’s play EVEN MORE games - and let’s play minor league teams against the NHL clubs, ensuring the game will be non-competitive because either the minor league club will get run out of the rink, or the NHL club will play only the most junior players and the fourth-string goaltender so their star players can help win a Stanley Cup, not some made-up trophy to be awarded at the conclusion of a charity circus to aid the impoverished teetering minor-league teams by forcing the best teams to play more games than enyone else, increasing the chance they are tired, hurt, and sloppy (although that would contribute to parity, come to think of it).

I don’t know what else to say about this idea.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 12/31/07 at 04:06 PM ET

One thing that has had me scratche’n me head...what about relegating the bottom teams out of the league and promoting the top teams of the AHL, ECHL...whatever? Maybe a headache, but I get tired of teams playing for a pick. I know the players don’t but I do belive the GMs do.

Maybe it’s crazy but as iin soccer when you in the BIG league it’s because you have a good team not because you have a registered trademark...or whatever the Kings have...or teams like them.

Posted by johnnygloveside on 12/31/07 at 04:47 PM ET

For all of hockey fans’ insistence that they are tech-progressive, I’ve never seen a fan base so stubbornly mired in the past and unwilling to embrace change of any sort.  I get it, maybe those ideas aren’t fully formed and have logistical problems, but they were interesting, unlike, say, keeping the status quo.  I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the game, but all sports must adapt to the times, and providing international competition seems like a good way to do it for hockey, considering the amount of Europeans playing.

Posted by PDXWing from Portland, OR on 12/31/07 at 06:11 PM ET

The NHL is lukewarm on the Olympics, for crying our loud.  Instead of solving the problem of too many games by playing even more games, better to reduce the number of games in the season, relieve the monotony of the schedule by balancing inter-conference play more, and fully commit to the Winter Olympics by using the time gained in the schedule from reducing games to enable players to have a few extra days off to travel to and from the Games with less stress.

Besides, everyone points out how international play in the Olympics hasn’t increased interest, so why would a version of international play with less history do any better?

I have no problems with new ideas, but try something that is other than a variant of previous ideas that have already not worked as intended.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 12/31/07 at 06:43 PM ET