Since the lockout, the NHL has been trying to make its game more appealing to the average fan. The first thing that they actually tried was decided before the lockout, which was the addition of the trapezoid behind the net to limit the goaltender?s ability to play the puck. After that a competition committee, led by Brendan Shanahan, thought of the "Shanny Rules". These rules consist of ways to free the attacking player by not allowing the defending player to hold, slash, hook, clutch, grab, etc. On top of that, they removed the red line so that it pushes the defense back behind the defending team?s blue line, which in theory would eliminate ?The Trap?. Other rules like touch up offsides and a delay of game penalty for shooting the puck over the boards without a deflection were added to improve the game. The fact is, all of these rules focus on one thing, and that is to score more goals. Now the main question: is lack of scoring really the problem? It?s strange how the NHL?s automatic response to the lack of excitement the game generates is that they need to score more. The new idea that is gaining steam right now is to increase the net size. The theory is goalies and equipment have gotten bigger, and shooters need a bigger target. This would be a dramatic change, and the NHL should be careful with what they do when having several ideas in making decisions. First, what is considered a good offensive game? Second, if they create too many goals, will that aspect of the game become boring? And third, are there other ways to create excitement without worrying about the offense? These three aspects are the main ideas the NHL and the competition should consider before making any hasty decisions. So, what is an offensive game? Right now, it seems the general consensus is it?s an individual game that has many goals in it. However, you can have a game with no score and still be exciting, as long as there are plenty of scoring chances. In order to create these chances, you need to have an offensive game plan. During the 1980s and early 90s, the NHL was at its peak offensively. At that time, coaches' game plans were to score, score, and score some more. The fans loved it. The problem began in 1995, when the New Jersey Devils won the Stanley Cup for the first time. They discovered that if they did their best to prevent goals rather than looking to score them, the likelihood was the opposing team will make mistakes and give you a scoring chance. The problem is they just clogged up the middle of the ice, forcing the play to go along the boards, while having one person in to fore check. This is known as ?The Trap?. This is significant because in sports people copy what wins. So when the Devils won, the rest of the league looked to copy, and most of them were successful. Thus, instead of one boring team, there were almost 30 of them. The ones who didn?t copy were shut down offensively and lost in the playoffs (see Toronto Maple Leafs in 2000 with only 6 shots on goal in Game 6 of the Eastern Semi-Finals versus the New Jersey Devils, 1 off the modern day NHL record of 5). If the NHL wants to create an exciting game, they need to get rid of ?The Trap? all together. The elimination of the red line was a good first step, but now teams are simply clogging up their offensive zone rather than the neutral zone, meaning they just pushed the trap back a little bit. The fact is, no matter how big the net is the style of hockey won?t change unless they figure out something new. A game with no score but has 40 shots on goal each will still be more exciting than a game that?s 7-4 with 20 shots each. If this league wants to be considered one of the big 4 in North America, then they must think outside the box on this. All right, so let's say they decide to increase net sizes, and goals are easier to come by, how does that affect the game? The one thing about hockey is that there is nothing more exciting than scoring a goal. The reason is goals in hockey are harder to come by than in most other sports. With the exception of soccer, you could conceivably miss half the game and still not miss a thing in the sports like football, basketball, baseball and lacrosse. In these, you know if a team scores, the other team is most likely to come back to tie or go ahead at some point in the game. So those games tend to go back and forth until it?s over. In sports like hockey and soccer, if one team scores a goal, the other team knows it?s that much harder to win the game. If goals are easier to get in hockey, then you're taking away that excitement which comes every time a goal is scored. Fans like to see something rare, something that?s hard to come by, that?s why the touchdown, the home run, and the 3-point shot and dunk are so popular. It?s not something that happens every time the team has the ball. If goals become too much of a regular occurrence, then fans will shrug them off and just wait for the end of the game to start really paying attention. The point is to create a happy medium by not having too many or too few. Right now, there?s not much of a problem with the rate of goals to many people; they just want to be entertained, which goes back to the scoring chances vs. goals' argument. The NHL should probably just leave this alone. Ok, so if scoring more goals isn?t the answer to making this game more exciting, what is? There is more to this game that can bring fans off their seats than scoring goals. Every time a goalie makes an incredible save the crowd goes wild. When there is an open ice body check, it lifts everyone out of his or her seat. Even whenever there is a fight, the noise level almost equals the amount when a goal is scored. Each of these things excites fans almost as much as scoring a goal itself. However, in its quest to create more scoring, each of these aspects of the game has been hindered, whether it be the Instigator rule, the reduction of goaltending equipment, or the elimination of where players can be hit. Now let?s face it, fighting and violence does sell in the United States, despite what the goody two-shoes say. Last year, when Ottawa?s Chris Neil hit Buffalo?s Chris Drury with a clean body check that knocked Drury out, the line brawl that ensued sent ripples across Canada and the United States. It was one of the only times hockey even made the ESPN highlight shows in the USA. Now a critic of the rough stuff will talk about how wrong it was and how it made the game look bad. But if you asked any fan of either the Senators or the Sabres how they felt about it, they wouldn?t say they felt disgusted with the fighting; in fact, just the opposite. The bond to their teams strengthens in situations like that; it?s you vs. them. The fans just want to win that much more and will go out and support the team with more fervor. Obviously, this would have to be controlled violence. Just like with scoring, too much of one thing doesn?t help the game at all. But instead of suppressing the violent aspect of the game, it should be advertised more. Obviously, the NHL will have to be stricter with intolerable acts because, though the physical side is exciting, it?s playing with fire. It can get out of hand quickly, so it will need to be policed well. But it should be that not only are fans entertained by scoring chances but also by how the defense stops them. Let them be entertained by showing off the famous ?Code? the players have, thereby proving to the the world they will not be taken advantage of. Again, a critic would say that in no other sport would they allow this because players would get kicked out. The fact is, hockey shouldn?t be trying to be like other sports; it should be trying to create its own standard for others to emulate. In order for a sport to truly succeed, it needs to be unique compared to the other sports out there. No, this isn?t football where if players fight they are ejected, and no, this isn?t wrestling or UFC where fighting can get out of hand. What needs to be understood is though the NHL is trying to make hockey as popular as the other 3 major sports in North America, their ultimate goal should be to compete with them. If they try to copy them, they?re only setting themselves up to being second best, if that. Think about it: if all they do is copy the other leagues, how will that set them apart? There would be no reason for any fan to switch from other sports to hockey because it wouldn?t offer anything different than what they are accustomed to. As far as the goaltending goes, it?s time to leave it alone. The NHL has already taken away the ability to play the puck and has shrunk goalie pads. Out of all this consumption of trying to create more scoring, the goalies have suffered. Instead of trying to take away from the goalies, they should be looking to add to the offense. Increasing net sizes won?t necessarily change anything, as was said earlier. The goaltenders have done their job to the best of their abilities and should be commended for it, not penalized. The key for this to work is balance. There can?t be too much of one aspect in a sport; otherwise, it becomes unbearable to watch. This won?t be easy for the NHL to decide. Coaches have to use every trick and loophole in the book in order to win due to job security. You can?t ask them to stop playing ?The Trap? just because it?s boring. For it to stop, the NHL has to find other means, which is easier said than done. There will have to be a bit of experimenting throughout the years to find that equal balance, but once they do? there won?t be anything more exciting. Now all they have to do now is get started. Have a question? Comment? Concern? You can email me at Kirshenblatt@gmail.com