Last week, the NCAA passed a rule change allowing hockey teams to dress 19 skaters per game. Rather than the typical 18-man lineup – six defensemen and twelve forwards (not including goalies) – each squad is now allowed an extra man that can be used at either position. The college level is after all a developmental league and the ability to expose another player to game action each night benefits the growth of a greater majority of the roster. Yet, this rule change is one that could also benefit the NHL. For a variety of reasons, the league should consider expanding the allowable number of players who may dress for a game.
The first, and perhaps the most glaring reason, to consider this change is that hockey is the only mainstream sport that doesn’t allow an extra player to enter the game that doesn’t fit neatly into the lineup. Yes, hockey does have a large roster of 18 skaters and yes the lines and pair do substitute one another all game long. However, consider football, which has 11 starters on offense and 11 starters on defense for a 22-man starting roster that also substitutes one another. Yet, NFL game day rosters are 46 men deep, more than double the amount of starters. The same goes for lacrosse (field lacrosse), a more similar game to hockey, as only nine men play in the field but the average active roster in the NCAA is 44 players, nearly five times the starting roster. Even soccer (11 men in the field) and baseball (nine batters) allow for multiple substitutes who weren’t a part of a rather large starting lineup. Why then should the NHL limit teams to using only the 18 skaters who fit nicely into four forward lines and three defensive pairs?
There is also the fact that the NHL has reached a point that it needs to accommodate more talent at both ends of the spectrum. Young players often don’t have an easy fit on a roster. Developing offensive forwards may not yet have the ability and awareness for a top-nine role, but they certainly can’t help the team or themselves on the checking line. Young defensemen may not be ready to play major minutes against elite talent at the top level, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t ready at all. With the league trending in a more youthful direction, teams could drastically improve their development of certain players if there was an alternate choice between giving a prospect a starting job, sitting him in the press box, or banishing him to the AHL or back to juniors. If teams could slowly bring along pro-ready prospects by giving them the “extra slot” that the NCAA has approved, limiting their ice time and situations but exposing them to NHL action, it would likely be a popular move. However, some teams may instead like to use that slot on a veteran specialist. Just look at the current free agent market: last week we identified more than 40 useful players still available, yet the results of our poll strongly predict that less than ten of those players will find NHL employment. That might not be the case if each team had an extra slot to fill with an experienced penalty-killing forward or power play quarterback for example. Each off-season, more and more capable veterans go unsigned while teams still have needs due to roster limits alone. These players would rather not retire or move overseas, but they have often outgrown the minor leagues as well. Being that spare part on an NHL club would be an optimum fit.
For more evidence on the overflowing talent in the NHL, see the Vegas Golden Knights. An expansion team filled with rejects, young and old, managed to make it to the Stanley Cup Final in their inaugural season and used 35 different players along the way. Even when the league likely adds another expansion team in Seattle in the next year or two, there will likely still be players – young and old – capable of playing in the NHL but without ample opportunity. Just by allowing one more player in the game each night, it will create more opportunities for many different types of players.
The easy way to refute the idea of expanding rosters is the salary cap. Expanding the number of players who dress for a game to 19 would likely mean expanding the roster limit to 24 players and thus increasing the salary cap ceiling in turn and the owners won’t go for that. Not so fast though; with the bulk of this off-season complete, CapFriendly projects that just six teams will enter the upcoming season with less than $2.4MM in cap space, the average NHL salary last season. Consider that the “extra man” will likely be an entry-level prospect or a discounted veteran and there is a case that nearly every team in the league (except for the St. Louis Blues) could add another player right now without touching the cap. Those that would rather push to the cap with just a 23-man roster would also be welcome to do so – the league mandates a maximum roster size, but not a minimum. Teams that carry the maximum 23 players on their roster already have three players that don’t dress each night and could simply make one of them the 19th man.
The NCAA seems to be on to something with expanding game day rosters in hockey. Most sports have this option and the NHL should too. While there is no underestimating the importance of chemistry to the game of hockey, having an alternate or strategic extra man makes a lot of sense. Be it a raw young player, a specifically-skilled veteran, a bench player there as an injury replacement, or even a playoff contender using the spot for a hired gun, there are many ways that an expanded roster could benefit prospect development, elongate careers, improve game play, and simply increase overall interest and excitement due to the strategy of it all. It’s time the league take a look at the possibility.
Because they wont fit on the bench
Really though with the limited ice time some guys get already I dont see the point in dressing a guy so he can get 2 minutes of ice time a night. Its also impossible to get into the game if your shifts are 2 periods apart. that 13th forward would become a liability lol
In all likelihood it would be someone who was a PK specialist if you’re a contender, and a prospect if you’re not. I don’t see the harm in dressing him because you don’t have to use him if you don’t want to.
I’ve always thought it was odd for a league concerned about player safety that they don’t expand rosters. You roll 4 lines on offense but only roll 3 on defense. Why not add 2 more on defense? If one goes down now you are stuck with 5 for the rest of the game. It just doesn’t make sense.
But sadly it’s probably true that the length of benches is the biggest issue.
not expand roster, but allow teams to switch lineup between periods. also, immediately allow a change for injured player with restriction injured player cannot return. so if its minor teams may choose to play short until that player returns
Similar to soccer where the player comes off onto the side for a minute or two to get treated before being left in, except in hockey they wouldn’t play a man down. I don’t agree with the period by period swaps, but the injury substitution makes sense if they won’t go for an extra dressed skater.
The NHL already does this. It is called having 18 skaters. There are 5 “starters” and 13 “alternates”. Some teams already dress a man who is just a PP specialist or doesn’t play a minute of the 3rd. Rolling 4 lines with the 4th as a “checking line” is not a rule. Expose a young player to the game by calling him up for a week or a month to play 10 or 12 minutes each game. Part of the appeal of hockey compared to other sports is that each player on the bench really can contribute. It is a true team sport with no benchwarmers.
Exactly, despite how the article portrays it is exactly mandated 6 d-men and 12 forwards. While that’s how almost everybody does it, teams can dress any combination of skaters they want.
Name a team that doesn’t roll 6 defensemen? Occasionally you see a 7th if one is dealing with an injury. It’s not a rule but it’s the standard
I like the baseball idea where you can pull a guy from the game permanently and replace him with another player.
Just add a rule that if a player who gets added mid game gets a fighting major they get an automatic 5 game suspension so that goons aren’t brought into blowouts to extract revenge, etc.
A 19th player buys you nothing in the quality of the game. There’s a better case to be madden reduce active rosters to 16 or 17 players (the union would never allow) for better more consistent play. All the current system does is limit the time on ice of star payers and emphasize depth over talent.
Having an injury replacement would be a good way to find a middle ground between those for and against this. Most teams would likely “dress” a 7th defensemen as you can get by easier with 11 forwards as opposed to 5 defensemen (if the team were to suffer an injury). Obviously the injured player would have to be ineligible to return for the rest of the game in this scenario. You could also make it so players can’t come in for a player who is ejected from the game, thus making sure the team is still penalized for the player’s actions. This would fall in line with soccer’s red card system where a player who is shown a red card is ejected, their team is forced to play with one less player, and they can not use a substitution to replace him/her to get back to 11 players on the field.
If not that, and the injury replacement seems to be the most logical option, then maybe something along the lines of a between-the-periods substitution. Allow teams to have a 19th player on the active roster and allow him to come into the game between periods with the caveat that the player he is replacing can not come back into the game afterwards. The players might not like this as guys might see their already low ice times cut even further because their stuck in the coach’s dog house or for some other reason. This would essentially fall in line with the MLB substitution method where guys would come in to games for their offense or defense.
pjb87 had the best point – in hockey, 4th line guys on most teams only play 6-7-8 min a game. If you’re a coach, which I have been, you’re looking down at that 13th forward/7th D and thinking “why did I bother dressing him for 2 min/game? And if you try to interchange that player through a particular line (i.e. the player replaces the LW one shift, C the next, RW the next – and with D you just give them numbers 1-7, so the 1st 6 go, then it’s 7-1, 2-3, 4-5, 6-7, etc.) then you potentially ruin chemistry and guys trying to remember the tendencies of a replacement guy over their normal W, C or D partner.
If you’re the player and let’s say you are told to go out for a 2 min PK after sitting on the bench for a period and change? Your legs will be toast and you will serve no real value. You hear all the time – especially with young kids – that they’re sent down to the minors to get more ice time. I don’t think most coaches or GMs would rather have that kid up with the big club playing 2-3 mins/gm. That will stunt their growth even more.
The replacement player isn’t a bad idea, but remember, unlike every other sport, it’s not like the replacement guy just runs out onto the field or court. You’d have to call the player from upstairs and you’d need 10-15 mins to get equipment on. Not to mention you’d need to warm up. Allowing it between periods would be best. That might be the best way to do it, though, as in every other sport, you have guys who can replace those injured players, but not in hockey. You have to play the rest of the way shorthanded. I don’t mind that being the case, but I also think having a stand-by replacement player (which there’s usually always a couple extra healthy scratch forwards and at least one D in the press box) is probably the best way to go.