I put out a tweet yesterday asking one simple question: "What rule changes would you most like to see in the NHL? Can be anything."

Maybe I should know better at this point than to urge Hockey Twitter (Hockey X?) to say anything, but I have to admit, it paid off. There were more than 900 responses to the prompt, ranging from hilarious on purpose, hilarious by accident, serious and brilliant, serious and awful, and creative as heck across the board.

Thank you for providing me with hours of entertainment and laughs as I sifted through to collect a blend of the most popular complaints and the most unique proposals.

Curating a highlight reel of my mentions is least I could do to pay you back. Here are some of the most popular, funniest, brightest and/or most original rule changes you would most like to see in the NHL.

Special Teams

There's a lot to unpack here, Brett! Only one take per customer, please, unless they're all this interesting.

We'll come back to No. 3 and No. 4 later, and No. 1 right after this. But No. 2 seems so simple that I almost forgot it wasn't already a rule. We harp on facets of possession time as a huge part of both surface and underlying analytics and a players' overall game. It feels unfair to start a power play at center ice when it carries over to the next period.

I wonder if this rule—or the lackthereof of the amendment Brett proposed—is born from the ever-present fear of officials changing the complexion of the game. The catch 22 is this ends up happening just as much when the league is going out of its way to avoid it. Why not put a relatively smaller but still potentially consequential rule like this in place and see how it goes?

As you can see, iterations of "If a team scores on the delayed penalty, they should still be awarded a power play" were among the most popular rule-change suggestions. I'm pretty neutral on this one.

On the surface, I get it: Fair is fair, and the team in question shouldn't be penalized for scoring. But players know the rules, and reflexes happen in live action when folks commit a penalty, see a penalty, and/or are penalized against.

I'd be more on board with this change if it was more specific—perhaps if the penalized player was not involved in the goal-scoring play. But that's way too convoluted.

I was loving Ryan's creativity here, but I was a hard no on this one until another X user stepped in with his amendment. A full 60 needs to be a full 60, period. This isn't soccer!

We also need to consider that it's impossible to make everything completely fair, and the NHL has to (and does, for the most part) weigh fairness on a hierarchy. The most baseline "fair" thing is to probably just end the game at 60 minutes. But I wouldn't hate the penalty shot for particularly egregious crimes.

Then again, isn't that why game misconducts exist?

This is one side of a similar coin that kept popping up: Should a short-handed goal wipe a power play off the board? Should you be able to score on the power play as many times as you want?

I kinda feel like we should just leave well enough alone with both of these, but I bet I'd say the same if the rule changes y'all proposed were the ones already in place.

Hmm...is this overkill? Some guys are very bad at shootout-style scoring, though, and should they be penalized for that?

Extra Hours

Either let a tie be a tie or go full playoff three-on-three after the first overtime. They could at least test the waters by extending overtime five more minutes. I understand how this creates some problems in terms of player risk/exhaustion and TV time constraints, but perhaps it would motivate the league to stagger the games a bit and we all win.

This is one I really want to hear player opinions on. Maybe a certain someone writing about rule changes for Bleacher Report dot com should ask them...

All fun, tangible ideas to consider in lieu of a shootout!

@Jessdelaslajas:

"3-2-1 point system where:

• reg win 3 points

• OT win 2 points

• if no one wins in OT you get a tie and each team receives 1 point (no shootout)"

It could really all be this simple. I'd really like the league to avoid a situation like the Flames and their overtime losses last year. Why is the NHL so reluctant to drop the shootout?

Can Goalies Get Weirder?

We all know that goalies are a self-proclaimed different, quirky breed as a whole. But can we make them even weirder? This seemed to be the main objective when it came to goalie-themed rule changes you most want to see.

Look, if the loser point is going to keep existing, I am all for anything that makes the game more interesting until it's gone. Of course something like this would never happen, but it's fun to dream, and why not think big?

This is a funny thought I've jokingly mulled over several times throughout the years. It reminds me of the David Ayres situation. After all of that went down, the Hurricanes told me had Ayres gotten hurt, forward Ryan Dzingel was next in line to play goalie. It makes you wonder which skaters would actually be the best goalies.

I was surprised to see so many of these. Eight times out of 10, do I think it's smart when the goalie leaves the crease? No. Is it usually entertaining? Yes. Should it be up to the individual goaltenders' discretion? Absolutely, and I don't want the league holding netminders' hands on this one. Maybe throw them a bone by clarifying goaltender interference first.

It's not the most popular or pressing issue by any means, but I think majority of us can get on board with plus/minus not counting in pulled-goalie situations.

Found Marc-Andre Fleury's burner account.

Everyone's Favorite: Offsides

By far, the most flagrant and popular bone the 900-plus of you had to pick with the current NHL rulebook was anything and everything associated with offsides.

Offsides review is absolutely one of the most tedious rules and processes in sport. It's another one where I'm sure there is a better way, but I'm not sure what, exactly, is the best way, to go about changing it.

This one isn't half bad.

Nor is this, although it wouldn't necessarily eliminate review.

There we go. This one is simple enough, clear enough and discourages reviews.

But...I'm also willing to adopt a "too bad, so sad" mentality and do away with offsides reviews entirely.

Here's an angle not commonly talked about when this issue comes up: What if we changed the way the referees review the thing?

I like the idea of this on paper, but I see it ending up one of those gray-area issues that are exploited and distorted like goaltender interference. Good first draft, Kermit.

Now we're cooking with fire.

Miscellaneous Gripes

When I think about the most glaring, no-nonsense, no-brainer rule I'd implement if I became commissioner today, it's this. There's something so dystopian about watching play continue when a player is hurt down on the ice, and it's something that happens common enough that the rule is worth changing. Players with possession hate it, players without possession hate it, spectators hate it. This isn't the Middle Ages. Let's change this one already.

In the same spirit as the first one, here, I totally agree. Instigator and diving should be gone. What other professional sports league has these things?

I once called Hurricanes GM and president Don Waddell, and he texted back that he couldn't talk because he was at the rodeo. Let's add a Yee Haw element to this game night expeditiously.

I'm also here for a loser tournament, just once, just to see what would happen. Sharks vs. Sharks. Or perhaps, how about the first team that loses to the Sharks this season is eliminated from playoff contention?

Hmm...I would say kicked in goals aren't goals. Am I no fun?

I appreciate the effort, the graphic, and the conversation about the playoff format.

Found the 2006 Edmonton Oilers' burner account, and I couldn't agree more. This penalty has always annoyed me.

This is so random, and I don't know how I've never thought about it before. I'm in. Why not?

If I were the NHL, I would simply make the language of all rules not be open to interpretation.

Only one entity can pioneer this movement, and it goes by the name of Gritty.

Found Michael Andlauer's burner.