Potential NCAA Rule Changes Will Mostly Hurt Cornell

As happens every two years, the NCAA hockey standing committee on rules will meet this summer to debate potential rule changes. Here's a look at a few of the possible changes, and some speculation on how they will affect Cornell.

-Tampering with overtime; mandating that overtime be played 4-on-4 (as in the NHL), followed by a shootout if no one scores. Right now, each conference decides how overtime games will be played. (The ECAC is 5x5 with no shootout.) I don't like this change at all. I've written before that I think it's stupid to play a decisive overtime period with different rules than those which are used during regulation, whether that means changing the number of players on the ice or calling penalties differently. Plus, Cornell tends to favor good positioning and physical play over skating virtuosity, which means that 4x4 hockey isn't conducive to success for Cornell. If 4x4 is implemented, look for the Big Red to do their best to play good defense and settle for a tie instead of taking the puck to the net. Shootouts are simply stupid, in my opinion. I have no problem with ties. Cornell has done pretty well in shootouts in Florida over the last few years, but remember also that the Big Red haven't converted a penalty shot opportunity in over 20 years.

-Requiring half-shield face masks instead of full-shields. I don't exactly follow the logic of proponents of this shift, who say that players will give more respect to opponents who have half-shields, which means they won't hit them as hard, which will reduce injuries. But apparently "nearly 100 percent" of coaches are in favor of the change.

-Eliminating the ability of shorthanded teams to ice the puck. This is an exceedingly stupid idea and I really hope the coaches aren't asking for this change. Cornell is very good on the penalty kill, and they are almost always content to shoot the puck down the ice and use the opportunity to change lines. If this rule were to be changed, Cornell couldn't ice the puck, but would instead be forced to try to carry the puck past the red line before shooting it down-ice, or else only clear it part of the way down the ice sheet. Either way, it would be more difficult to put fresh penalty killers on the ice.

-Penalizing players for shooting the puck over the glass. The NHL already does this. I'm not personally opposed, but I recall vividly the game at Quinnipiac this year, when Brendon Nash kept sending the puck over the boards when he tried to clear it. The boards are shorter at Q than at Lynah, but still, it was pretty bad. Two people in the stands were injured. This might be a good rule overall.

-Keeping the faceoff in the offensive zone if the puck hits the crossbar and goes out of play. This rule is logical and seems likely to be implemented.

The problem here is that the college game, like the NHL, is looking for ways to boost offense. Cornell is a somewhat anachronistic team in that they like to play low-scoring games. The majority of the proposed rule changes (see some more here) are intended to increase scoring. This hurts Cornell.

One major non-gameplay potential change is the reconfiguration of the NCAA tournament. Currently, four regional sites each host four teams for a total of three games over two days. The winners from each regional advance to the Frozen Four.

There is some support for making the first-round games a best-of-three series at the home rink of the higher seed. This rewards better teams by making it easier for them to advance. Certainly the increasing parity of college hockey has led to a higher number of situations - like RIT over Denver in Albany this year - in which a #1 seed has been stunned by a team which was arguably less talented. I really think Cornell would have beaten UNH in a best-of-three series at Lynah, even though UNH won the single game played in Albany.

Under the proposed change, the eight winners of the first-round series would play their quarterfinal games at one of two "super regional" sites, with the four winners of the games advancing to the Frozen Four.

I'm in favor of this change. The shift to a best-of-three series properly rewards the higher seeds, and it'll be a much better atmosphere than the often-dead atmospheres at distant regional sites. (See: Grand Rapids Regional, March 2009). There's also more revenue for the host schools.

As Adam Wodon points out, the major problem with this change is that the Pairwise system for seeding teams in the NCAA is still quite flawed. Until that is resolved, it doesn't make sense to give the #8 seed such a huge advantage over the #9 seed.