Around the NHL 2025-26 Season

[PerreaultForever]

30 minutes ago, Stads said:

Are you Jeremy White from WGR 550? He's been pushing for that for quite some time 

Nah, I don't do Springsteen imitations. 

Oh wait, different Jeremy 🙂

(I don't know WGR 550 at all but glad to hear I'm not alone)

[SwampD]

54 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Loser points give you too much imo.

I really think the league needs to look at a 3,2,1 system. 3 points for a regulation win. 2 points for an OT win and 1 point for the OT loss. I think that might put it back on track for .500 actually meaning .500

but maybe not. I'm just speculating. 

Who cares, really? It just doesn’t matter. It’s not like the Sabres would make the playoffs if points system were different. 

[Taro T]

40 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Who cares, really? It just doesn’t matter. It’s not like the Sabres would make the playoffs if points system were different. 

Well, if home wins were 4 points and road wins only 1 point, that might get them pretty darn close.  They have to have one of the better home records to go with the league worst road record.

[PerreaultForever]

56 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Well, if home wins were 4 points and road wins only 1 point, that might get them pretty darn close.  They have to have one of the better home records to go with the league worst road record.

That used to be the old school indicator. Everybody could win at home, but the good teams, the playoff teams, were the ones who could win on the road. 

It changed a little because originally the rinks were so different in sizes and quirks the home teams truly had home advantage and now uniformity makes that less special  but maybe the old adage still applies to some extent. 

[#freejame]

Team USA jerseys go on sale in 90 minutes. I try not to be much of a consumer these days, but I’ve wanted an Olympic jersey as long as I can remember. I’ll be getting matching one for me, my dad, and my son as our Christmas presents. Matthew Tkachuk for my son, blank for my dad, McAvoy for me. 

[#freejame]

1 hour ago, #freejame said:

Team USA jerseys go on sale in 90 minutes. I try not to be much of a consumer these days, but I’ve wanted an Olympic jersey as long as I can remember. I’ll be getting matching one for me, my dad, and my son as our Christmas presents. Matthew Tkachuk for my son, blank for my dad, McAvoy for me. 

Well, not anymore for $290 a piece. ***** ridiculous. 

[ska-T Palmtown]

17 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

That used to be the old school indicator. Everybody could win at home, but the good teams, the playoff teams, were the ones who could win on the road. 

It changed a little because originally the rinks were so different in sizes and quirks the home teams truly had home advantage and now uniformity makes that less special  but maybe the old adage still applies to some extent. 

Don't some of the European soccer leagues use the 3-2-1 scoring system?

[JustOutsideChicago]

Had the Avs Islanders game on in the background earlier. Randomly caught Bedhar during the postgame and listening to him made me think that it’s wild the Sabres are in the same league. Such a stark contrast listening to that guy after a loss.

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

Don't some of the European soccer leagues use the 3-2-1 scoring system?

I believe so yes. 

[SabreFinn]

6 hours ago, ska-T Palmtown said:

Don't some of the European soccer leagues use the 3-2-1 scoring system?

It is also used in hockey 

[sabrefanday1]

Crazy...Leafs score on first shot of the game in four straight games. They are often out played and outshot but goalies keep them in games. Goaltending is so important with every team now capable of winning on any given night.

[Stads]

They need to change the challenge system and make it more in line with the NFL model. You get two a game and don't get penalized if you're wrong. Give each team two timeouts a game and lose one if you're challenge fails. Also, please explain why the call on the ice stands or does not. My guess is they don't know why the hell either and just do what Toronto tells them

[Taro T]

4 hours ago, Stads said:

They need to change the challenge system and make it more in line with the NFL model. You get two a game and don't get penalized if you're wrong. Give each team two timeouts a game and lose one if you're challenge fails. Also, please explain why the call on the ice stands or does not. My guess is they don't know why the hell either and just do what Toronto tells them

Personally, wouldn't like to see teams get an extra timeout, but do agree a coach should be able to have 1 challenge when nothing too onerous happens should the challenge be wrong.

Would go with, you can lose 1 challenge without getting a bench minor.  IF you still have your TO, you lose it for a failed challenge.  If you don't, then no harm no foul.  Yeah, it might seem unfair, but unless a team has been REALLY bad early on, everybody is going to have their TO until at most least 5 minutes are left in the game.  So, a 1st failed challenge will typically result in a lost TO, but not always.  Who cares that all 1st failed challenges aren't identically onerous.  Hockey GAMES aren't equally valuable - some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3.

A 2nd failed (and any subsequent) failed challenge is still a bench minor.

And would have the league or an off-ice official review all plays that are close in the last 2-5 minutes in a game (not sure just how long).  Personally would also like to see something to keep teams from calling a timeout and THEN challenging a call.  That seems to be outside the spirit of the challenge.

Edited 14 hours ago by Taro T

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

Personally, wouldn't like to see teams get an extra timeout, but do agree a coach should be able to have 1 challenge when nothing too onerous happens should the challenge be wrong.

Would go with, you can lose 1 challenge without getting a bench minor.  IF you still have your TO, you lose it for a failed challenge.  If you don't, then no harm no foul.  Yeah, it might seem unfair, but unless a team has been REALLY bad early on, everybody is going to have their TO until at most least 5 minutes are left in the game.  So, a 1st failed challenge will typically result in a lost TO, but not always.  Who cares that all 1st failed challenges aren't identically onerous.  Hockey GAMES aren't equally valuable - some games are worth 2 points and some are worth 3.

A 2nd failed (and any subsequent) failed challenge is still a bench minor.

And would have the league or an off-ice official review all plays that are close in the last 2-5 minutes in a game (not sure just how long).  Personally would also like to see something to keep teams from calling a timeout and THEN challenging a call.  That seems to be outside the spirit of the challenge.

Personally I'd rather go back to no challenges, no replays. Just hate the refs when they screw up like we always have and keep playing mistakes and all. All this new video stuff just slows down the game and doesn't really make anybody happy. The old flawed way was better. 

[Taro T]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

Personally I'd rather go back to no challenges, no replays. Just hate the refs when they screw up like we always have and keep playing mistakes and all. All this new video stuff just slows down the game and doesn't really make anybody happy. The old flawed way was better. 

If it were simply a binary choice of keep the current system or go back to no reviews at all, would likely reluctantly go to no reviews.  

But, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.  

Already said how this kid would fix the offside challenge.

For goalie interference, wonder if something like adding a 2nd "crease" 18 inches (or whatever distance makes the most sense) outside the actual crease might allow them to make that a more cut and dried endeavor.  ANY contact with the goalie or his equipment that is within the blue paint is goalie interference UNLESS the defenseman drove the offensive player into the blue paint OR the puck was uncovered inside the crease.  If the offensive player was outside the yellow (or whatever color they choose) paint when the D made contact that drove the offensive player into the goalie then if he makes ANY effort at avoiding the goalie, it's a good goal.  If that offensive player is in the yellow paint when the contact with the D begins then it's goalie interference.  Simple.  Might result in some plays that should've been interference to go uncalled and vice versa but its easy to implement and people will finally know again just what goalie interference is.

Maybe you even enlarge the blue paint about 6" to allow for the goalie's glove being outside the blue paint when a stick or arm bumps against it impeding the movement which would bring a judgement call back into play.

And you still can't intentionally check a goalie inside or outside the crease.

Wouldn't that result in D-men intentionally checking F's into their goalie when he's inside that yellow paint?  Well, it could.  But D that start regularly breaking their goalies by running F's on top of them won't be long for this league.

Just spitballin' that goalie interference idea.  Hadn't really given much if any thought to how to fix that issue prior to this post.

So, get to a spot where OBVIOUS missed calls are now fixed and close judgement calls are left to the refs' judgement.  

[PerreaultForever]

Nah, get back to battling through it. A little brush on the goalie should be nothing. Only clear indisputable interference called. They want more goals don't they?

[LTS]

If they are going to pause the game on a challenge then just don't require a challenge and instead have the off-ice officials confirm every goal. I can live with confusion over "what is goalie interference?" but doubling down by penalizing a team when it's clearly a vague area is just stupid.  

If the purpose of the league is to "get it right" then just "get it right" as best you can.  If they don't want to do that then just stop replays overall and be done with it.

I'm good on the off-side because that is pretty straight forward, but goalie interference is a gray area they don't seem to be able to define.