http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle2363692/
i personally think the longer overtime sounds cool, could you imagine Datsyuk with all that room to play with, shoot even Helm would be good 3 on 3, not that you would want him over Fil or Z, but he is fast as all hell and plays good D. idk what do you guys think?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle2363692/
i personally think the longer overtime sounds cool, could you imagine Datsyuk with all that room to play with, shoot even Helm would be good 3 on 3, not that you would want him over Fil or Z, but he is fast as all hell and plays good D. idk what do you guys think?
OT should be 10 minutes - however is deemed best. Too many shootouts.
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.
I'm not sure I see how 3v3 is any more conventional than a shootout. I think it's just another thing that doesn't need fixed. I'd rather just see the goalies allowed to play the puck again and all of the lines moved back to where they were.
I think the 4 or 4 could go ten minutes. 3 on3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout (which is ok with me.)
But to share a thought of my dad's: The season is already so grueling it is too much to ask the players for more entertainment. My pops also feels that 3 points for a win (like college) would eliminate hockey teams only playing not to lose.
What do the players want is my question, and they should be instrumental in the decision if there is a change.
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 am not a big fan of the 3 on 3 idea. I don't really have a problem with the shootout either, it ends games and if you have ever been there for one it is terrific and exciting. I think if they keep the current 4 on 4 for five minutes I would like them to go to 5 rounds like the AHL in the shootout, make more guys go for a better result of skill.
In any event and not that this would ever be proposed but for a while now since they have no problem tinkering with overtime procedure I have thought why not mandate 3 forwards, i.e. you are only allowed one d-man out on the ice at any time. This would include if you were unfortunate enough to take a penalty, although some teams already deploy two forwards in that situation so not a big deal. I think this might free up the game more make it incredibly offense driven in overtimes. Just my opinion though.
Holland needs to stick to what he knows best, everything else in GM'ing
edit
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingedWheel1987
6 on 6 with no goalie.
Five minutes
team with most goals at the end of the OT wins.
Your welcome.
LOL as hilarious as that is, damn that would be entertaining... probably would lead to a ton of injuries when you have the Laperrieres of the hockey world diving in front of shots.
Can you imagine the carnage when the Bruins (Chara) played the Predators (Weber)?
Through Thursday, 13.54 per cent of NHL games were decided in shootouts this year, the second-highest total since the league introduced the format in 2005-06.
Over 13% of games are being decided by a shootout? Yeah, that's too many. Time for a rule change.
Either make regulation wins worth more (3 points instead of 2) or get rid of the OT gimmicks and just go 10 minutes 5-on-5 with a tie still being an acceptable result. With parity becoming more evident each year...you just have to embrace the fact a lot of games will just end in a stalemate but stop rewarding a team for having 3 decent shooters in a shootout or a goalie who can stop a shot or two.
I'd like this, but I feel we've turned the corner and can't go back. Many fans seem to like the idea of a winner each game. So Holland's idea of adding more time to the OT to force a winner, without the shootout, might be as good as we get.
And speaking of ideas, my favorite idea to increase goal scoring was Lidstrom's suggestion that penalties not expire when a goal is scored. 2 minutes is 2 minutes. I don't want goal scoring to actually be increased, but I like that idea a hell of a lot more than smaller goalie pads or bigger nets.
It's just most democratic. That 3 point win forces you to win it at regulation.
Honestly, I think the NHL really likes how bundled the standings are every spring. Everybody but a few teams appear to have a legit chance until the very end.
The NHL would have adopted the 3-2-1-0 point system long ago if it weren't for the fact that we already have that in europe. It's against the NA mentality to be a follower. Better to have a irrational system, that to copy an european system, it seems like.
Honestly, I think the NHL really likes how bundled the standings are every spring. Everybody but a few teams appear to have a legit chance until the very end.
There would be a tight race regardless. The thing is, that the 3-2-1-0 system encourge teams to WIN games, instead of waiting for the OT all the time and it removes to irrationality in that some games are 3-points games and some games 2-point games.
The NHL would have adopted the 3-2-1-0 point system long ago if it weren't for the fact that we already have that in europe. It's against the NA mentality to be a follower. Better to have a irrational system, that to copy an european system, it seems like.
There would be a tight race regardless. The thing is, that the 3-2-1-0 system encourge teams to WIN games, instead of waiting for the OT all the time and it removes to irrationality in that some games are 3-points games and some games 2-point games.
Well, ignoring the cheap shot to North American's there... see mods, I'm learning.
But seriously, you're being foolish. You have a point, one I mostly agree with, but you're expressing it quite poorly. What I was trying to say is that the NHL prefers to keep the "bad" and "irrational" system because it doesn't allow teams to gain leverage as easily with wins. When some games are 3 points, and some are 2, that leads to a bundle in the middle.
Does it make sense from a logic standpoint? Not really. But it makes sense if you're trying to artificially create a sense of parity around the league.
Well, ignoring the cheap shot to North American's there... see mods, I'm learning.
But seriously, you're being foolish. You have a point, one I mostly agree with, but you're expressing it quite poorly. What I was trying to say is that the NHL prefers to keep the "bad" and "irrational" system because it doesn't allow teams to gain leverage as easily with wins. When some games are 3 points, and some are 2, that leads to a bundle in the middle.
Does it make sense from a logic standpoint? Not really. But it makes sense if you're trying to artificially create a sense of parity around the league.
I guess that next year there will be 1,5 p for a win and 1,25 for a OT loss. Every team within 2 points at the end of the season. The US crowd goes bananas by the excitement.
There is good merit in the salary cap system that the NHL have, should not that be enough for parity? Why bring in irrationality, it's just dumb.
