THE CASE FOR 4 ON 4

Has time come to drop one player from the playing surface, just like already exists in overtime?

Maybe it is, and here are 5 reasons why:

1) If competing 4 on 4 during the five minute overtime for half of the point total available is fine with everyone then competing the first 60 minutes four a side should be too.

2) Nowadays coaches think in pairs, not lines, when putting forward combos together. So four on four meshes with that thinking perfectly. Besides, we certainly don't want to overtax today's coaches, do we? They have very little help.

3) Eric Lindros, and many others, think the rink needs to expand. Well how do you Harry Houdini expand a surface area without actually "expanding the surface area"? You reduce the congestion, that's what you do. You subtract two 6-0 200 pound humans from the on-ice equation and… Ta-da!

4) Body contact gets severely reduced when teams play 4 on 4. Players can't risk getting grossly out of position trying to drive an opponent into next week so the physical toll ( ie concussions) is really limited and a premium is put on skill, skating and hockey sense. Quick, how many fights have you seen erupt during four on four play? Right, I can't either.

5)  You hear a lot about "top six forwards" and "top four defensemen" these days. Well, my Canadian high school math skills tells me that equals three pairs of forwards and alternating pairs of defenseman. These are the players fans want to see, coaches want to play, and owners handsomely pay. Throw in an extra defenseman and pair of extra forwards in case of injury and you would have 30 rosters full of the absolute best hockey talent on the planet.

Four on four. It's the new five on five.