5 NHL Changes We Need to See ASAP

Do you feel that chill in the air, hockey fans?

We're less than one month away from the start of the 2025-26 season. You know what that means -- we're less than one month away from complaining about goaltender interference and all the rest of the things we'd change oh-so-easily if we were in commissioner Gary Bettman's shoes.

Let's get a head start on our complaining and really lobby for our most passionate league-changing proposals this year. Here are five NHL changes we need to see ASAP.

The new CBA, set to kick in with the 2026-27 NHL season, is bringing in several positive changes to get excited about. Among them is the shortening of the pre-season, and NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told Sportsnet last week this could mean an earlier start to the regular season.

If the past two Cup Finals have taught us anything (other than how much the Panthers love beating the Oilers), it's that the NHL season ends far too late. Two consecutive Cup Finals featuring game sevens and geographical challenges had hockey fans fatigued for drafts occurring just weeks later.

Plus, two consecutive Cups for Florida sure reminded us that we'd rather not be sweating bullets in late June while Lord Stanley is hoisted and paraded around town. There's absolutely no harm in shortening the pre-season and getting this party started a few weeks earlier, especially if it means fewer pre-season injuries.

I used to leave the shootout alone. I assumed players preferred it to extended overtime in the regular season, and I figured we should let them have this in exchange for the best postseasons in sports. Then I asked Matthew Tkachuk what he would change if he were the commissioner of the NHL.

He said he'd get rid of the shootout and play overtime hockey "forever."

Now, Tkachuk is a two-time Cup winner and a certified rat for a reason -- he isn't your average NHL player, and I'm sure some would have valid reasons for keeping the shootout format. But those players aren't exactly making it to the Cup Final for three consecutive years, so I love that a player who should be fatigued was the one telling me he'd rather play overtime hockey forever in game 37 of the regular season than succumb to a shootout.

The idea of a loser point for going top shelf or five-hole is also so inherently anti-what hockey is supposed to be. To me, it's like having a dunk contest at the end of every NBA game. Guess what they do at the end of NBA regular-season games? They suck it up and play five-minute overtimes until a winner is determined.

Genuinely look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself a question: What good has the puck-over-glass penalty ever done for the game of hockey? Players aren't actively trying to stop play by thwarting the puck over the glass, so incentivizing them not to do so with this often consequential penalty is a fool's errand that just aggravates us all.

Why not treat this the same as icing? Aren't those two delay-of-game situations the same at heart? Now, if a player was mad and purposely flung the puck into the stands, that should come with repercussions -- but that's why misconducts exist. Other leagues generally don't penalize players for balls out of play, so why not turn it into a "jump ball"-esque face off?

Nobody likes goalie interference because no one can decide what it is. The rule itself is vague by design.

Here it is, straight from the NHL rulebook: "This rule is based on the premise that an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances be allowed.

Goals should be disallowed only if: (1) an attacking player, either by his positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to move freely within his crease or defend his goal; or (2) an attacking player initiates intentional or deliberate contact with a goalkeeper, inside or outside of his goal crease. Incidental contact with a goalkeeper will be permitted, and resulting goals allowed, when such contact is initiated outside of the goal crease, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact. The rule will be enforced exclusively in accordance with the on-ice judgement of the Referee(s), but may be subject to a Coach's Challenge."

Officials are often criticized for their game-by-game calls when it comes to this penalty, but the inconsistency comes from the open-to-interpretation wording of the rule.

How about we get a little more specific here? The NHL could adopt USA Hockey's clearer goalie interference rule. In USA hockey, if an attacking player stands, holds their stick or skates through the crease at any time, provided the puck is in the attacking zone while the attacking team has possession of the puck and the goaltender is in contact with the crease, a faceoff shall be conducted at the nearest neutral zone faceoff spot. If an attacking player physically interferes with the goaltender, they get a minor penalty.

If an attacking player is physically interfered with by the actions of a defending player and ends up in the crease, however, play continues. If the whistle isn't blown and the puck goes in, the goal will only count if either (a) an attacking player is pushed into the crease or goaltender by a defending player, (b) the puck preceded the players into the crease or (c) if the goaltender is out of the goal crease area.

It's more rigid, sure, but once we all got used to it, this would avoid a lot of drama.

A common complaint about the Stanley Cup playoffs -- one often muttered from my mouth -- is that some of the best action often occurs in the first round. How do we fix this? Well, if you ask the commissioner, we don't.

The first round brings a ton of revenue to the league, and hey, if that ain't broke I understand why the league wouldn't want to "fix" it. But from a viewer's standpoint, a traditional 1 vs 8 format could give us the best product. We've seen over and over that in some years, one division is simply weaker than the other. It seems most fair to have the first and eighth team facing off, the second and seventh, and so on.

What about a play-in tournament? The seventh-place team could face off against the 10th seed, eight vs. nine in a three-game series to qualify for the playoffs. Considering the league is shortening the pre-season, and considering the popularity of something like the Four Nations Face-Off, there could be interest in additional tournament play.