Fewer is better--behold of proof.(NHL)

You know you're hooked. And you like it.

You sneak out of work early to get home in time for the first game. You stay up to watch late games. You wish you could hear every word Jarome Iginla says to Kirk Maltby between whistles. You rush to work in the morning to scan game summaries on the Internet and speculate about the latest lower-body injury.

Even fringe fans watch hockey during the playoffs. They're drawn by the grit, the edge-of-the-seat drama, the wounded warriors, the end-to-end action, the passion of the players to lift that silver cup. Different teams emerge every year to challenge the powerhouses, which are not always determined by the thickness of their wallets. Any team could win the Stanley Cup any given spring.

The playoffs. Crazy. Exciting. Addictive. You don't know what you would do if it were like this all the time.

News flash: It can be like this all the time.

How? Easy. We're halfway there. Take this season, for example, when the best players were dealt to the best teams to make the best run at a Cup. The non-playoff teams, which gave away these players, now reside in the dustbin of insignificance. Remind you of something? Well, it reminds me of something: contraction.

Back in February, we had the audacity to pronounce that eliminating six teams would make the game vastly better. As expected, that position was met with discord and, in the case of Blue Jackets general manager Doug MacLean, disdain. (The usually affable MacLean took the SPORTING NEWS to task on his weekly radio show for including his woeful Blue Jackets in the purge.) I, on the other hand, think we should have wiped out more teams, and I'm as diehard of a hockey fan as you'll find.