from Rick Carpiniello of Rangers Report,

- One thing I don’t get, and it seems simple to me, is why the NHL doesn’t make two amendments to its playoff overtime procedure. First, why do the team switch sides? What is the point of forcing both teams to make the long change in the first (and third) OT? I know, the long change sometimes results in a bad change and an offensive chance. I think it also results in more careful play, more dump-and-changes, and probably results in more too-many-men penalties (or missed penalties). I just don’t see why teams can’t defend on the side of their bench for the entire overtime. I think it would improve the OTs.

- The other thing is, there are no TV timeouts during overtime, which is good for us, but not necessarily good for the game. We heard all about how tired the players were in Game 1’s triple-OT (partly, I’m going to repeat, due to the long change). Part if that is because there are no breaks for all the players to get a breather and for the ice to be shoveled, as there are in every period all season long, and the first three periods of every playoff game. Why not just schedule a quick timeout, instead of once after the 10:00 mark, but also after the 5:00 mark and the 15:00 mark? Would add two or three minutes to the OT, total, and make for a better OT, just as not switching sides would. I think players would be fresher, more chances would be taken, maybe the OTs would even end more quickly.

more hockey notes...