I don't see how anyone can claim 3v3 is as gimmicky as the shootout. It's obviously MUCH closer to real hockey. In fact, while rare, it can actually happen in regulation. You have defense, you have team dynamics, you have a goalie, you have faceoffs. It's going to all but guarantee that one team capitalizes, mitigating the need for the shootout, and it's obviously leagues closer to pure hockey than the shootout is.
I say keep keep the shootout after 5 minutes of four on four. Two points goes to the winner of the game no matter how they win, and ZERO points to the loser of the game no matter how they lose.
This!! Losing team shouldn't be awarded.
Also, not all fans love the shoot out. I actually don't like it.
3 on 3 is a horrible idea. It has so little in common with 5 on 5 hockey, there will be nothing but breakaways. Shootouts have just as little in common with 5 on 5, but it's much more entertaining than 3 on 3 would be.
Keep oertime/shootout the way it is and go to 3-2-1-0
What's wrong with ties? Season is already too long, especially for teams that actually make the playoffs.
Back when we hiked to school, ten miles each way, uphill both ways, in two feet of snow, we had ties.... and WE LIKED IT.
Why not look for ways to discourage teams to play for the tie in the third period instead? Also, if a team really needs some points, they'll go for it instead of settling for 1 pt.
"NHL needs to go back to ties with no points given. A tie is a tie!" My Dad's exact quote when he rants about the extra point given to the loser after a shootout.
If they go with no points for a loss then why even have points? Just go by W-L like every other sport. Problem is though hockey is a lot like soccer, few points scored means ties are much more common. To me I love the current system, exciting end to a regular season game and hey no reason you don't deserve 2 points for playing to a tie for 65 minutes and pulling it out in the end in a pressure packed shootout
Its already been discussed by the GMs, its not happening. They do not object that the system artificially packs teams together in the standings, that is the intended purpose entirely.
They do not want a few teams running away with it in early February. They want every division leader to have a crack at the #1 seed and they want the 12th place team to have a crack at #8 with less than 10 games to go.
Sucks for the good/great teams, awesome for the average teams and they outnumber the former.
i use to not like the shootout at first but i think i have gotten desensitized to it over time and apparently the vast majority of the fans do enjoy it, so I think they should keep it in there now.
However, what I think they should do to make things more interesting is simply the loser of a shootout gets 0 points, but if you lose in OT you still get the loser point.
With this system, I think you will see much more risk taking in OT to try and win the game to avoid losing in a shootout and getting 0 pts. You might even see some desperate teams pull their goalie if they have an offensive zone faceoff to try and have a powerplay type situation to win the OT game.
i use to not like the shootout at first but i think i have gotten desensitized to it over time and apparently the vast majority of the fans do enjoy it, so I think they should keep it in there now.
However, what I think they should do to make things more interesting is simply the loser of a shootout gets 0 points, but if you lose in OT you still get the loser point.
With this system, I think you will see much more risk taking in OT to try and win the game to avoid losing in a shootout and getting 0 pts. You might even see some desperate teams pull their goalie if they have an offensive zone faceoff to try and have a powerplay type situation to win the OT game.
I don't really like the shootout, I just hate ties. Continuous OT isn't the answer since it would tax the players too much. So any way to eliminate ties is the best thing, I hope better options are found.
Every other sport meaning non-contact sports, right? Football doesn't have continuous OT. Baseball does, but you're not hitting anyone in baseball. Same with Basketball.
First let me say I had no problem with ties, but a lot of people seem to do.
How about this.
Reg/OT Win = 2 points
Reg/OT Loss = 0 points
SOW/SOL = 1 point
If it gets to a SO both teams are awarded 1 point. You playing the gimmick for the title of "Winner" and in the standings you just have categories like the did before with W-L-T-OTL and have W-L-SOW*-SOL.
You're still eliminating ties and having a winner declared but you eliminate 3 point games decided by a gimmick.
SOW* can be used as one of the tiebreaker methods so its not completely meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu
What's wrong with ties? Season is already too long, especially for teams that actually make the playoffs.
The NFL is most popular sport in a America and they have ties.
I mean ties are rare but still, no one complains one they happen.
One other alternative to my suggestion above is to play one either 10, 15, or a full OT period then declare a tie if no one scores.
Last edited by Big Poppa Puck: 03-09-2012 at 11:27 AM.
The season is very long so I'm sympathetic to not playing more hockey than is already being played. The biggest change I'd like to see is a team get zero points for losing a game. Just eliminate the loser point. Keep the shootout but don't reward it as being the same thing as winning a hockey game, because obviously it's not the same thing. I think a team should get 2 points for winning in regulation or OT. If you win a shootout you only get 1 point.
I don't really like the shootout, I just hate ties. Continuous OT isn't the answer since it would tax the players too much. So any way to eliminate ties is the best thing, I hope better options are found.
Agreed. I cannot stand ties. I mean the whole point of playing the game is to determine a winner and a loser
Regulation Win 4 points
Overtime/So Win 2 points
Overtime loss 1 point
Regulation loss 0 points
Make regulation wins matter (a 4-point swing?). Watch the way teams will fight to win games in regulation, as opposed to now, when everyone seems content to get their point and see what happens in the extra play
I like it but I would give 3 points for the overtime win and 2 for the shootout win. Ot and shootout loss would still be 1. the reason being is that it is more of a team playsituation in Overtime as compared to the shootout.
I also have to say that I like the suggestion of no goalie for a second overtime. So a hot goalie is allowed to save your butt durring regulation and the first OT but if your team can't take advantage of him during that time, let the better team win.
Last edited by wingnutjeff: 03-09-2012 at 01:41 PM.
I don't see how anyone can claim 3v3 is as gimmicky as the shootout. It's obviously MUCH closer to real hockey. In fact, while rare, it can actually happen in regulation. You have defense, you have team dynamics, you have a goalie, you have faceoffs. It's going to all but guarantee that one team capitalizes, mitigating the need for the shootout, and it's obviously leagues closer to pure hockey than the shootout is.
Actually they have eliminated the 3v3 opportunities. It was the edmonton rule back in the days of Gretzky. Edmonton would intentionally draw other teams into offsetting penalties in order to free up the ice for their skill guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booyah!
Why don't they play until there's a winner? Like the playoffs?
Can you imagine a 3 overtime game and then having to travel for a back to back game? The injuries would skyrocket and no one could make it to the playoffs.
What's wrong with ties? Season is already too long, especially for teams that actually make the playoffs.
Back when we hiked to school, ten miles each way, uphill both ways, in two feet of snow, we had ties.... and WE LIKED IT.
Why not look for ways to discourage teams to play for the tie in the third period instead? Also, if a team really needs some points, they'll go for it instead of settling for 1 pt.
The SEL had ties from 2004-2010, then implemented shootouts again in 2010-11 because the fans wanted it back. The teams don't have much against ties but the shootout has an overwhelming support among the fans. Maybe not the hardcore fans, but fans in general. In the end you go to see/watch your team win or lose.
I think 3pts for the regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss and 0 for regulation loss would be a better way to go than bring ties back. Also not fond of 3on3, but I would rank it ahead of ties.
I love this idea, stop rewarding losers. Watch how many teams stop playing for the 1 point by dumping the puck in and putting all 5 guys behind the red line and stuffing up th neatral zone in the last 10 minutes of the 3rd period
