Faceoff: Clunky sequels? Bigger ice surfaces? Networking?
Erin Brown and Wes Goldstein of CBSSports.com provide analysis on three topics.
| 1. Cous4th asks: What's up with (six) of last year's 16 playoff teams being ninth or lower in their respective conferences? Is this free agency at work, or what? | |
| Wes Goldstein | Erin Brown |
 Free agency has something to do with it because the salary cap allows more teams to use this tool for quick turnarounds and to level the playing surface. The consequence is dispersing talent throughout the league. Call it parity or mediocrity, it doesn't really matter because aside from a few elite talent collections like the ones in Detroit, Ottawa, Anaheim and maybe two or three others, not much separates the vast majority of teams in the NHL. That's what you're seeing in the standings so far, where six points separate the second-place team from the 12th in the East and seven in the West. I wouldn't get too concerned with the standings now since everyone is bunched and some teams have played fewer games. It will probably stay that way much of the season because of three-point games. What will separate teams ultimately is a hot streak at the right time. |  I think free agency, in terms of both additions and subtractions, has definitely changed the face of the standings. Teams like the Sabres, Islanders and Predators are struggling because of significant roster changes. They're also being pushed out of the playoff picture because offseason signings are paying dividends for teams like the Rangers, Flyers and Blues. But another factor playing a significant role in some teams' downfall is poor defense and goaltending. Of the six 2007 playoff teams currently below the elimination line, four have a team goals-against average which ranks in the bottom third of the league. Five franchises have a team save percentage below .900. The only squad that trumps this trend is the New York Islanders, who captured the No. 8 seed by a hair last April and are just two points behind eighth-place Montreal this season. |
| 2. Birdseed asks: Would the NHL be a better game with bigger ice? | |
| Wes Goldstein | Erin Brown |
| After watching the great hockey between NHLers at the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics I would have said absolutely. But since the goal of doing that would be to increase scoring and offensive excitement, now I think a larger ice surface would be counterproductive. Guys are bigger, stronger and better equipped in the NHL today than ever before, and the idea of giving them a little extra ice space to maneuver seems logical on the surface, but the NHL thought it would open things with all its rule changes after the lockout. It worked for a season and a half, and play on the ice flowed end to end, until the coaches and players figured out how to play defense under the new rules. They would do the same on a bigger ice surface and with more territory to cover, players would find it even tougher to get themselves shots at the net. | I had the chance to see about 30 IIHF World Championship games in 2001, and the two differences I noticed were the elimination of the two-line pass infraction and the bigger ice surface. When I got back to the U.S. and caught a Penguins-Devils game, I recall being bored because a clogged neutral zone killed the game's flow. Since the NHL eliminated two-line passes, I think game play is similar to what I witnessed in Europe. The rule change has helped create more odd-man rushes, scoring chances and ways for teams to break the dreaded trap. I'm not sure the NHL would benefit from expanding to Olympic-sized, 98- by 210-foot rinks, though. Tacking on about 5 feet in width would give players a little more room to work and open up the game a little. But adding anything more could make the game feel much slower. |
| 3. What is your early review of the NHL Network in the U.S.? | |
| Wes Goldstein | Erin Brown |
| I'm a sucker for those classic series tapes, so the NHL Network has an automatic appeal for me, although those flicks are really only time fillers. The NHL Network runs them generally during the day and picks up live broadcast feeds of NHL or minor-league games a few times a week. But what really makes this channel worthwhile is the nightly highlights newscast that is replayed hourly until noon the next day. The show could use better in-studio work by analysts, but it doesn't matter because the footage is edited nicely. The channel has been running in Canada for several years, but it only became available in the U.S. about a month ago via subscription through cable or satellite providers. Building that up takes time, but if the league could find a way of penetrating sports bars and hotels, the highlight package would be a great tool for getting exposure. | When I heard about the NHL Network's debut north of the border in 2001, I started looking into getting a Canadian satellite dish through loopholes. That's how bad I wanted this channel. Since the network debuted in the U.S., it has been a mainstay on my television at both work and home. The NHL has done a great job of generating content for the channel, from vintage games, recaps of classic playoff series, top 10 lists and the occasional tips show for those who play. There's also coverage of AHL and ECHL games, which is great if your favorite team's affiliate is playing. The nightly highlights package, On the Fly, is what really stands out. The show dedicates a generous amount of time to every contest, not just to show the top goals and saves, but significant scoring chances, fights and other minutia other networks ignore. Now that I actually have the NHL Network, I regret not jumping through hoops six years ago for the Canadian dish. |
| Do you have a question or hot topic you'd like to see discussed on CBS Sports.com? Feel free to post it by clicking here. We'll be checking in week to week for the best questions. | |
