Thats not the feedback I'm getting at hockey rinks in Canada. The gimmick has run it's course, even the kids these days are saying it sucks.
Yea I love the try to win and not play for a tie argument too. Not the boring play for the Loser Point and hope we get lucky in the crappy gimmicky shootout.
As for actual NHL hockey its true, maybe check around a bit or ask some hockey fans but I am most surprised you haven't noticed the NHL is in a lockout and there hasn't been any NHL hockey this year.
How is the shootout a gimmick? It's been around for decades and it's decided at least one gold medal game in the Olympics (SWE/CAN 1994), yet somehow it's not good enough for deciding NHL regular season games?
yeah, just look at all the fans that leave arenas after the OT. The stands are essentially empty.
And I'm sure all of those watching at home are turning off their TVs as well.
Maybe just the casual fans are leaving, huh?
Laugh all you want. I don't care. Most ppull are going to watch it whether or not they like it. I submit that if put to a vote the shootout would lose resoundlingly. And I mean a real vote to all hockey fans not just those on hockey forums. Actually your retort is quite disingenuous.
I wouldn't go that far......don't want players getting worn down.
Especially problematic for teams that have road games on back to back nights. Nobody wants to go in to double or triple OT, and then have to travel to play a team the next night.
However, what I would suggest is 4-on-4 OT for 10 minutes. 2 pts for win in Reg or OT, 0 pts for a loss in Reg or OT, and 1 pt for each if tied after OT. No shootout. No loser point. No 3-point games.
4-on-4 tends to be much more wide open with lots much more offense and lots more scoring chances. A lot harder to just clamp down on a game with that much extra open ice. A 10-minute OT also gives extra time for offenses or power plays to do their stuff, while still putting a finite end to the game if nobody scores. The game would basically be just as long as it is now, except that we'd replace the dry-scrape and shootout with 5 more minutes of sudden death hockey.
And if two teams are still tied after 10 minutes of fast-paced 4-on-4 hockey......then so be it. It's a tie.
This is in line with my solution except I say that both teams get zero points if the game ends in a tie. This way both teams will try to win the game cuz if you don't win you get nothing. As it is if teams have the option to hang on for a single point, in any scenario, history has proven that is what will happen. Teams will play for the point [or not play to be more accurate].
Force teams to try and win to get points, not this "hanging on for a Loser Point" like we see now.
How is the shootout a gimmick? It's been around for decades and it's decided at least one gold medal game in the Olympics (SWE/CAN 1994), yet somehow it's not good enough for deciding NHL regular season games?
It's a gimmick cuz it individualizes a team game. It is akin to football deciding a game by having the QBs throw the ball through a tire, or basketball deciding a game by having the first player who makes a basket from over the half court line, or baseball deciding a game by having the first player to have a pitched ball hit a target, or soccer deciding a game by.....actually who cares about soccer.
It's really quite simple, they don't need to change anything right now except the simple idea to remove the single point and award 2 points to the team that wins OT/SO.
I'm fine with 4on4 OT, I'm fine with the SO, they're both exciting. But just remove the damn single point and only award 2 points to the winner. I bet you start seeing alot more teams making an effort to end it in regulation and OT.
It's a gimmick cuz it individualizes a team game. It is akin to football deciding a game by having the QBs throw the ball through a tire, or basketball deciding a game by having the first player who makes a basket from over the half court line, or baseball deciding a game by having the first player to have a pitched ball hit a target, or soccer deciding a game by.....actually who cares about soccer.
So where were all the complaints about gimmickery when it was used in the Olympics? If it was such a gimmick, surely bitter Canadians from coast to coast would have been using it as a scapegoat in 1994 and 1998, no?
So where were all the complaints about gimmickery when it was used in the Olympics? If it was such a gimmick, surely bitter Canadians from coast to coast would have been using it as a scapegoat in 1994 and 1998, no?
Canadians don't need a scapegoat. I vividly recall how much everyone hated the shootout in 94 and 98 - we have been saying forever to decide the game playing hockey. Your suggestion that the shootout is not a gimmick because the IIHF has been using it for decades actually strenghtens the cause as to how asinine it is.
How is the shootout a gimmick? It's been around for decades and it's decided at least one gold medal game in the Olympics (SWE/CAN 1994), yet somehow it's not good enough for deciding NHL regular season games?
Those are tournaments. Somebody has to win, you can't give out 2 gold medals. Having shootouts to decide regular season games is beyond stupid.
We have a way to decide winners in the playoffs its called sudden death OT.
Laugh all you want. I don't care. Most ppull are going to watch it whether or not they like it.
Disagree 100%. I don't like basketball or soccer, so you know what - I don't watch either of them. Maybe that's weird, not watching what you don't like..? (and I guess that's some high praise for soccer, putting it in the same bs category as basketball, which I used to follow)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst
I submit that if put to a vote the shootout would lose resoundlingly.
Every HF poll re shootout, the shootout has won by at least 60/40.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preisst
And I mean a real vote to all hockey fans not just those on hockey forums.
It's really quite simple, they don't need to change anything right now except the simple idea to remove the single point and award 2 points to the team that wins OT/SO.
I'm fine with 4on4 OT, I'm fine with the SO, they're both exciting. But just remove the damn single point and only award 2 points to the winner. I bet you start seeing alot more teams making an effort to end it in regulation and OT.
Why would you need points if the only points you can earn are 2 for a win? Really well thought out solution there
Disagree 100%. I don't like basketball or soccer, so you know what - I don't watch either of them. Maybe that's weird, not watching what you don't like..? (and I guess that's some high praise for soccer, putting it in the same bs category as basketball, which I used to follow)
Sorry but that is a horrible analogy. You don't like basketball or soccer I agree do not watch. But this is hockey we're talking about and just because one watchs the hockey game doesn't mean one likes every single component of the game. Personally I abhor the shootout, hence I do not watch them, BUT, even though the majority of fans do not like the shootout does not mean they will not watch it. They have already vested X amount of time watching the game so it is not odd that a lot of them will watch The Gimmick just because. I don't and I know of others who don't either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19
Every HF poll re shootout, the shootout has won by at least 60/40.
That is hardly a compelling %. I submit that the VAST majority of hockey fans do not participate on hockey forums like this one. It is just a guess but I'd be surprised if even 10% of fans do. So no matter what the actual % is it leaves a hugh untapped number of fans who aren't voting in these polls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19
Fans vote every time an OT ends.
I question that you actually believe that fans not leaving the arena when OT ends is a testament to whether or not they like The Gimmick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butch 19
... and I as trying to be ingenuous.
No problem we all fail sometimes at what we're trying to be....
It's really quite simple, they don't need to change anything right now except the simple idea to remove the single point and award 2 points to the team that wins OT/SO.
I'm fine with 4on4 OT, I'm fine with the SO, they're both exciting. But just remove the damn single point and only award 2 points to the winner. I bet you start seeing alot more teams making an effort to end it in regulation and OT.
I like this guy. If he ran for congress I would vote for him.
Don't think you understood what I was saying. If there's only wins and losses, you don't need points.
That is fine too, you don't need a points system. The NBA has done without one for years. I'm just saying, take any initiative away for that single point, and teams will start playing to win. I hate the 3 point games.
So where were all the complaints about gimmickery when it was used in the Olympics? If it was such a gimmick, surely bitter Canadians from coast to coast would have been using it as a scapegoat in 1994 and 1998, no?
Some did.
But there is still a fundamental difference between a league structure (like the NHL season) and a tournament structure (like the Olympics). There is no need to force a result. Every game isn't an elimination game.
why not keep everything the same but reduce shootout wins from 2 points to 1?
Most of the people who actually believe a shootout is a viable way to decide hockey likely wouldn't even realize it is now meaningless an those who find it exciting still get their kicks?
It's a gimmick cuz it individualizes a team game. It is akin to football deciding a game by having the QBs throw the ball through a tire, or basketball deciding a game by having the first player who makes a basket from over the half court line, or baseball deciding a game by having the first player to have a pitched ball hit a target, or soccer deciding a game by.....actually who cares about soccer.
Your logic is flawed because all of your analogies don't include a player from one team going against a player from the other team. It's not like they're asking a shooter to hit 4 targets in the net or some crap... it's still a test of TEAM against TEAM. The shootout is an effective way to end a prolonged tie... not a gimmick.
I don't get the hate for adding another component to hockey...
Last edited by Fanned On It: 12-21-2012 at 02:58 AM.
Your logic is flawed because all of your analogies don't include a player from one team going against a player from the other team. It's not like they're asking a shooter to hit 4 targets in the net or some crap... it's still a test of TEAM against TEAM. The shootout is an effective way to end a prolonged tie... not a gimmick.
I don't get the hate for adding another component to hockey...
OK: the equivalent in the nfl would be the Quarterback and the Receiver playing "pig in the middle" against 2 opposing players. In the NBA the equivalent would be a 1-on-1 halfcourt game to 3 baskets.
I question that you actually believe that fans not leaving the arena when OT ends is a testament to whether or not they like The Gimmick.
This - you could settle tie games by having the captain of each team chug a gallon of milk at centre ice, and whoever pukes the farthest wins. Fans would cheer just as loudly for that as they would for sudden-death OT or a shootout.
Your logic is flawed because all of your analogies don't include a player from one team going against a player from the other team. It's not like they're asking a shooter to hit 4 targets in the net or some crap... it's still a test of TEAM against TEAM. The shootout is an effective way to end a prolonged tie... not a gimmick.
I don't get the hate for adding another component to hockey...
agree. And it's a damn exciting component as well.
I mean, it's MORE hockey, and the end of a tie game - what's not to like?!
If you would have told me 7 years ago, that a small vocal group of fans would absolutely still HATE the shootout, I would not believe you.
I would imagine that the SO has succeeded even more than the NHL had hoped for. It's just fun to watch and easily one of the best things to come out of the last lockout.
Your logic is flawed because all of your analogies don't include a player from one team going against a player from the other team. It's not like they're asking a shooter to hit 4 targets in the net or some crap... it's still a test of TEAM against TEAM. The shootout is an effective way to end a prolonged tie... not a gimmick.
I don't get the hate for adding another component to hockey...
OK.
-Change football to having the punters line up on the same goal line and see which one can punt it through the opposite side goal posts first.
-Change baseball to seeing which "team" can be the fastest at around the horn
-and as another poster sugested basketball can be decided by a game of one on one and first to 3 wins.
Apparantly not gimmicks but team on team methods to solve a game in which neither team is able to ascertain themselves playing by the old archaic rules of the game.
agree. And it's a damn exciting component as well.
I mean, it's MORE hockey, and the end of a tie game - what's not to like?!
If you would have told me 7 years ago, that a small vocal group of fans would absolutely still HATE the shootout, I would not believe you.
I would imagine that the SO has succeeded even more than the NHL had hoped for. It's just fun to watch and easily one of the best things to come out of the last lockout.
You yourself said that the polls on this forum are usually 60-40 so how does this constitute a 'small vocal group'? Especially when considering that 90% of the fans who do not visit hockey forums haven't cast a vote and are most certainly going to vote against The Gimmick by a resounding percentage.
