HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > The AHL
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The AHL Discuss the American Hockey League; its players, teams, and games.

Get Rid Of The Shootout!!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-26-2004, 02:40 AM
  #51
GoneFullHextall
JR=clueless
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 35,138
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Sigh...Philly fans..this has nothing to do with that single game its the shooutout in general..think before u type.
your the one who brought it up about the SO loss to Springfield. So if you didnt want me to respond to a single game then dont bring up the single game when you started this thread. Just for the record i am not a big fan of the shootout either. It is entertaining for the fans, yeah its a crappy way to lose a regular season hockey game. But they will not be using the shootout in the playoffs, So it wont be an issue there. btw there was no need for the sigh... Philly fan comment and you may want to check the spelling in the post that started that thread.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 03:12 AM
  #52
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,325
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeppelin97
Well, theres European Soccer. And if i recall correctly, 1 or 2 european Hockey leagues use shootouts. Shootouts are not a silver bullet, obviously. It still doesn't solve the trap or interference, which are hampering the NHL.
Which Euroleagues use shootouts during the regular season?

me2 is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 05:57 AM
  #53
Iceman23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 65
vCash: 500
Shootouts would definitely make the game more TV friendly. Plus, soccer doesn't seem to mind using them and they don't cause problems.

Iceman23 is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 06:26 AM
  #54
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Um No. I havnt like the idea of a shootout from the start and that really showed it. Every AHL fan shouldnt like the idea of a shootout because what does i prove...who can score on a breakaway? Wow i bet if your a baseball fan you would hate the idea of a HOME RUN DERBY at the end of a game to decide the finish. Dont accuse me of writing what i did when u have no idea what my thoughts are. You lost a lot of respect for that.
MLB has a suitable method for dealing with tied games, hockey does not.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
11-26-2004, 06:28 AM
  #55
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Flaming
Baseball: No home run derby to settle games.
Basketball: No free throw contest to settle games.
Football: No field goal distance contest to settle games.

Why does hockey feel it's OK to use a breakaway contest?

Seems silly when you look at it that way doesn't it?
Not really, those 3 sports have effectively eliminated tie games, and continuous overtime just isn't an option in the nhl.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:37 PM
  #56
wint
#CatsAreComing
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV
The anti-shootout purists seem to be forgetting the casual fan - the majority of NHL fans (certainly in the US) think ties are silly, anti-climatic and a big turn-off. People want finality. I remember when I was 10 watching my first hockey game on TV start-to-finish - and it ended in a tie. I thought that was the dumbest thing ever, and it took about 14 years before I got into hockey again in a big way.

US sports fans don't like ties. While you can argue that some tie games can be exciting, that's certainly not the majority of them and the excitement sure as hell wasn't CAUSED by the tie. Ties aren't satisfying to anyone.

On the flipside - I don't think you'll find ANY fan that went to a game where a shootout was involved who thought it was boring - even if the previous 65 minutes was a snooze-fest.

When it comes right down to it, the NHL is going to have to make some changes to get butts back in seats - and making the game more exciting with shootouts (even at the expense of miffing some purists) is a gamble they'll take in a heartbeat.

- T
I was listening to the Rampage-Wolves game tonight and they were discussing the merits of a shootout during intermission. To get different opinions, the announcer read some HFBoards posts, including the one above that TonySCV posted in this thread.

Just thought I'd let everyone know our opinions are infiltrating the (not-so) mass media. Oh, and the broadcast people were all pretty pro-shootout for most of the reasons already given in this thread, but also because they thought it would help sell the game in San Antonio, and because they were old IHL guys who liked the shootout in that league.

wint is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:41 PM
  #57
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,271
vCash: 500
Wow he picks the worst one...

Talking about US FANS dont like ties? WTF. Only a certain % would rather have a shootou then a TIE. And US Fan? yea because ONLY Americans dont like ties...every other country is cool with ties?

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:44 PM
  #58
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand
Not really, those 3 sports have effectively eliminated tie games, and continuous overtime just isn't an option in the nhl.
Thats because there is a SIMPLE solution in EACH of those sports that doesnt involve (HOME RUN DERBY, FREE THROWS SHOOTOUT, and FIELD GOAL KICKOUT) Each of there solutions involves the TEAM to still win it..they dont take the TEAM PLAY out of the game to solve the outcome like a shootout does.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
11-28-2004, 11:52 PM
  #59
TonySCV
Moderator
Push to the 8th Tee
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wint
I was listening to the Rampage-Wolves game tonight and they were discussing the merits of a shootout during intermission. To get different opinions, the announcer read some HFBoards posts, including the one above that TonySCV posted in this thread.

Just thought I'd let everyone know our opinions are infiltrating the (not-so) mass media. Oh, and the broadcast people were all pretty pro-shootout for most of the reasons already given in this thread, but also because they thought it would help sell the game in San Antonio, and because they were old IHL guys who liked the shootout in that league.
That's cool wint... thanks for the heads up. I wish I was listening .

TonySCV is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 12:06 AM
  #60
TonySCV
Moderator
Push to the 8th Tee
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Wow he picks the worst one...

Talking about US FANS dont like ties? WTF. Only a certain % would rather have a shootou then a TIE. And US Fan? yea because ONLY Americans dont like ties...every other country is cool with ties?
A certain %.. yes. The vast majority.

A website poll on the San Antonio Rampage web page shows 78% of fans love the new shootout rule this season - vs. 17% who hate it. Hardly scientific, but all of the polls I've seen show people in favor of a shootout by a wide margin. Granted, the rules can be altered a bit, but by and large they are far more entertaining than ties.

I'm not in favor of them during the playoffs, but shootouts provide a way to quickly decide a game in the regular season. They can't extend the length of a regular season game. TV won't stand for it because the ratings aren't there to justify it.

They can't do endless overtimes like they do in the playoffs because there's no TV station in the US that would be willing to air an extra hour or two of regular season overtime action outside of maybe 3 or 4 hockey markets (Detroit, Boston, etc.). The majority of US-based NHL teams PAY to have their games televised (ask Chicago Blackhawk fans about why most of their home games haven't been televised recently - you'll get an earful).

You've got to come up with creative solutions to getting fans interested in the NHL. If you don't like the shootout - I challenge you to come up with any alternative that would generate the level of fan interest the shootouts provide. Just saying it stinks without coming up with an alternative is a waste of bandwidth.

- T

TonySCV is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 03:40 AM
  #61
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 11,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
This kid does NOT speak for US FANS. Well all real fans will relize by the end of the AHL season it was the worst thing. It wont last another year. Also..if you think the NHL is going to bring the shootout in...well then.. :lol :lol :lol IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. They can get rid of 50% of the ties by making a 10 min 4 on 4 OT if they really want to but not by a HORRIBLE shootout. If you like the shootout so much go watch your mighty duck tapes.
im a US fan, and also an "us" fan (if that implies real fan). i agree with his opinion. i think the nhl is definitely at least going to try it at some point - so your ridicule is uncalled for. it wil happen, like it or not. getting more people to the games is more important than upsetting people who are going to watch and pay for games anyway. they could wear clown outfits and bring back the fox glo puck and i would still go or watch on tv. they're not concerned about my opinion cause im already sold. they dont care about your opinion either.

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 06:29 AM
  #62
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
I have never seen or heard of anyone saying they don't go to hockey games because there's a chance the game could end in a tie. Usually there's a long list of other reasons, though.

ceber is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 07:25 AM
  #63
Crossbar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 48" above the ice
Posts: 5,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wint
I was listening to the Rampage-Wolves game tonight and they were discussing the merits of a shootout during intermission. To get different opinions, the announcer read some HFBoards posts, including the one above that TonySCV posted in this thread.

Just thought I'd let everyone know our opinions are infiltrating the (not-so) mass media. Oh, and the broadcast people were all pretty pro-shootout for most of the reasons already given in this thread, but also because they thought it would help sell the game in San Antonio, and because they were old IHL guys who liked the shootout in that league.
Yeah that was thanks to me. I could not give my own opinion on if I hate or like the shootout since I haven't seen a pro shootout yet, so I told Andrew Monaco that Hockey's Future had this very discussion and that the posters here brought up some interesting points. I posted MrKnowNothing, hardcore_fan (fixed the spelling mistakes ), Riddarn, TonySCV and Guy Flaming's posts and he read them all on air and gave a nice little shoutout to visit Hockey's Future.

Crossbar is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 09:27 AM
  #64
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
I completely agree with Tony on this point. While a lot of hard-core hockey fans, myself included, don't really mind too much if a game ends in a tie (unless it's your team and you want the win), most casual fans just don't feel the same way. This is especially true in the US market. I hate to break it to some of the people on this thread, but the US market is essential to NHL (and AHL) success or failure. A typical American fan wants to see a team win or lose. Look at all of the negative fall-out that the MLB got after the All-Star game ended in a tie a few years ago. When you think about catering to the US fan-base, ties are just not a very good idea.

I really don't think that continuous OT is an option. I think the reasons on that are pretty obvious, but if some people disagree with me on that point, I will post my thoughts on that. A shoot-out is a pretty quick way to settle a tie. Also, shoot-outs can be quite exciting for the common fan. The common fan likes to see a Kovalchuk vs. Brodeur type of thing.

So called "hockey purists" can protest the shoot-out until the day they die. But the fact remains that a shoot-out would solve a couple of problems. It would eliminate the problem of having to deal with ties and it also could make a game more exciting for the casual fan.

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 10:53 AM
  #65
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
I just don't buy it. I'd be surprised to learn that a shootout would bring out a fan who normally wouldn't attend. I'd also be surpised to see fans stop attending because there were no shootouts.

Seems to me it's a "let's just try it and see" idea rather than a "let's hire some pollsters to survey fans and potential fans and see what the response is" idea.

There's got to be a better marketing scheme than "And if we're still tied after overtime, we have a shootout! Whee!"

ceber is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 12:16 PM
  #66
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen
im a US fan, and also an "us" fan (if that implies real fan). i agree with his opinion. i think the nhl is definitely at least going to try it at some point - so your ridicule is uncalled for. it wil happen, like it or not. getting more people to the games is more important than upsetting people who are going to watch and pay for games anyway. they could wear clown outfits and bring back the fox glo puck and i would still go or watch on tv. they're not concerned about my opinion cause im already sold. they dont care about your opinion either.

If you REALLY think the NHL will EVER use a shootout you are wrong my friend. At best they will use them in a preseason but it will NEVER be used in regular season games. Sorry to burst your bubble.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 12:19 PM
  #67
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV
A certain %.. yes. The vast majority.

A website poll on the San Antonio Rampage web page shows 78% of fans love the new shootout rule this season - vs. 17% who hate it. Hardly scientific, but all of the polls I've seen show people in favor of a shootout by a wide margin. Granted, the rules can be altered a bit, but by and large they are far more entertaining than ties.

I'm not in favor of them during the playoffs, but shootouts provide a way to quickly decide a game in the regular season. They can't extend the length of a regular season game. TV won't stand for it because the ratings aren't there to justify it.

They can't do endless overtimes like they do in the playoffs because there's no TV station in the US that would be willing to air an extra hour or two of regular season overtime action outside of maybe 3 or 4 hockey markets (Detroit, Boston, etc.). The majority of US-based NHL teams PAY to have their games televised (ask Chicago Blackhawk fans about why most of their home games haven't been televised recently - you'll get an earful).

You've got to come up with creative solutions to getting fans interested in the NHL. If you don't like the shootout - I challenge you to come up with any alternative that would generate the level of fan interest the shootouts provide. Just saying it stinks without coming up with an alternative is a waste of bandwidth.

- T
Like I already said...Have 4 on 4 for 10 minutes instead of 5...that will get rid of ties by 50%. Want to get rid of them even MORE...5 minutes of 4 on 4..then 5 minutes of 3 on 3.

FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 01:05 PM
  #68
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 11,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
If you REALLY think the NHL will EVER use a shootout you are wrong my friend. At best they will use them in a preseason but it will NEVER be used in regular season games. Sorry to burst your bubble.
im not the only one who thinks its coming soon. go to tsn's page, and check out the av links at the bottom. there is one about a bob mckenzie article where he states whenever the nhl comes back it will be all about fan friendliness and at the top of the list shootouts are likely to be implemented immediately. maybe you think bob doesnt know anything, but he is one of the most respected guys in the media, and he doesnt tend to sensationalize things just to get his articles attention. pretty sure he qualifies as a "real" fan as well. i have felt for a long time that shootouts would be tried eventually, and the only reason the ahl is trying it out is so the nhl can watch the effect. so far it has been a positive experience, and i think its coming at the end of the lockout. if the owners think it will raise attendence by 1% - they would do it in a heartbeat.

bleedgreen is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 02:28 PM
  #69
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
If you REALLY think the NHL will EVER use a shootout you are wrong my friend. At best they will use them in a preseason but it will NEVER be used in regular season games. Sorry to burst your bubble.
and you know this.......how?

FlyHigh is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 07:37 PM
  #70
Strakakis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
The shoutout changes the game.
It's no good for the AHL nor the NHL.

Strakakis is offline  
Old
11-29-2004, 11:41 PM
  #71
TonySCV
Moderator
Push to the 8th Tee
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guy Flaming

Baseball: No home run derby to settle games.
Basketball: No free throw contest to settle games.
Football: No field goal distance contest to settle games.

Why does hockey feel it's OK to use a breakaway contest?

Seems silly when you look at it that way doesn't it?
It doesn't seem silly when you take into account that the first three sports you mentioned have a staggeringly larger fan base in the US and the TV networks and advertisers don't mind overtimes and extra innings because they are making money from it. Most NHL teams PAY to have their games televised, and none of them want to pay more than they already are. Sudden death overtimes don't work when the team owners are the ones that have to pay for the 30-45 extra minutes of airtime (on average) each time they happen.

The Stanley Cup Finals got LOWER ratings than PBA bowling REPEATS on ESPN. That's how dire of a situation this is. It's not about coming up with a new way to decide games. It's about energizing and boosting fan interest. Shootouts are one way to do it without drastically altering what goes on during the first 65 minutes of the game itself - which will be next.

Face it. Ratings are what it's all about and no one is watching hockey. On ESPN, regular season games averaged 0.46% of U.S. cable TV households, translating to about 396,000 households. On ESPN2, game ratings averaged 0.23%, translating to about 195,000 households.

195,000 people watching a live sporting event televised nationally. That's beyond pathetic.

What fans are seeing in Chicago will be seen by more - teams will simply refuse to pay for their games to be aired.

There's nothing wrong with trying shootouts. It can ONLY help. The only way the fan base can go is up at this point. It's one vehicle used in an attempt to generate fan interest in a sport that needs an injection of new fans in a bad, bad way.

If not shootouts, then start thinking of what else they can try. Status quo isn't cutting it.

- T

TonySCV is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 06:37 AM
  #72
ceber
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Wyoming, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV
The Stanley Cup Finals got LOWER ratings than PBA bowling REPEATS on ESPN. That's how dire of a situation this is. It's not about coming up with a new way to decide games. It's about energizing and boosting fan interest. Shootouts are one way to do it without drastically altering what goes on during the first 65 minutes of the game itself - which will be next.
So a shootout at the end of very few games will drive people to watch games? If they aren't watching at the beginning now, why would they start when it's not going to be any different most of the time?

ceber is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 08:00 AM
  #73
X0ssbar
 
X0ssbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: ...on a star!
Country: United States
Posts: 13,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySCV
It doesn't seem silly when you take into account that the first three sports you mentioned have a staggeringly larger fan base in the US and the TV networks and advertisers don't mind overtimes and extra innings because they are making money from it. Most NHL teams PAY to have their games televised, and none of them want to pay more than they already are. Sudden death overtimes don't work when the team owners are the ones that have to pay for the 30-45 extra minutes of airtime (on average) each time they happen.

The Stanley Cup Finals got LOWER ratings than PBA bowling REPEATS on ESPN. That's how dire of a situation this is. It's not about coming up with a new way to decide games. It's about energizing and boosting fan interest. Shootouts are one way to do it without drastically altering what goes on during the first 65 minutes of the game itself - which will be next.

Face it. Ratings are what it's all about and no one is watching hockey. On ESPN, regular season games averaged 0.46% of U.S. cable TV households, translating to about 396,000 households. On ESPN2, game ratings averaged 0.23%, translating to about 195,000 households.

195,000 people watching a live sporting event televised nationally. That's beyond pathetic.

What fans are seeing in Chicago will be seen by more - teams will simply refuse to pay for their games to be aired.

There's nothing wrong with trying shootouts. It can ONLY help. The only way the fan base can go is up at this point. It's one vehicle used in an attempt to generate fan interest in a sport that needs an injection of new fans in a bad, bad way.

If not shootouts, then start thinking of what else they can try. Status quo isn't cutting it.

- T
I agree with you 100% TonySVC.

Shootouts at the pro level (regular season only) will increase the visibility of the league and will be attractive to the casual fan. They may not translate directly to ratings but you can bet that the casual fan BSing around the water cooler the next day will say "and it even went into a shootout!". People, that's positive word of mouth at the very least and right now the NHL will take whatever it can get.

The shootout isn't the ulitimate cure to the NHL's popularity/image problems but like it or not, the majority of fans love offense and hate ties. A shootout is a good alternative to addressing both of those needs at this point and should give the NHL's image a shot in the arm - especially in the US. You can bet Sportscenter will show Kovalchuk streaking down the ice to try to put one home on Brodeur.

The way I see it, if the players don't like them then they better get their butts in gear during regulation/OT and make sure it doesn't reach that point. The end result could be an improved intesity/quality of play in the dog days of January and February when players can tend to loose some edge to their games.

X0ssbar is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 11:02 AM
  #74
Bobby Lou
Moustache Power
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,459
vCash: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceber
I just don't buy it. I'd be surprised to learn that a shootout would bring out a fan who normally wouldn't attend. I'd also be surpised to see fans stop attending because there were no shootouts.

Seems to me it's a "let's just try it and see" idea rather than a "let's hire some pollsters to survey fans and potential fans and see what the response is" idea.

There's got to be a better marketing scheme than "And if we're still tied after overtime, we have a shootout! Whee!"
Yah, I completely agree with this above post. I think not only are people being overly optimistic about shootouts, they are assuming they are the 'big thing' the NHL needs to broaden its US fanbase. All I can say is huh?! You think cause there is a shootout at the END of the game it will draw out more casual fans who still have to sit through 60+ minutes of the SAME hockey? If anything you are gonna alienate the fans you already have with this barbarically foolish addition. Does anyone else recall this has been attempted in other leagues and they proceeded to get rid of it again? Somebody already mentioned it, but I don't want a teams playoff hopes decided by a penalty shot on 3+ periods of chewed up ice. The shoot-out is not an NHL phenomenon nor should it be, I agree it is exciting in some international tournaments, but that is where it should most definitely stay.

Some posters are making it sound like US fans deeply care whether there are shoot-outs in the NHL or not. I really don't think they do. A poll on an AHL team website, wow, who voted...the team? That is possibly the worst citing of statistics ever. The only US fans who care either way are the one's who already follow hockey and I highly doubt this is going to put a dent in the MLB's or NFL's US armor or draw any notable amount of additional fanbase. Also I think it will only hurt the fanbase in Canada, because the entire idea is completely foreign to the game over here.

I like how NHL OT's work now. What the heck do people have with ties, I completely do not understand this. Sounds like people only want some sort of finality to the game if their team is the one winning. I think ties are great, I get 60 minutes of regular hockey plus some intense 4 on 4. What exactly is wrong with that, one team didn't win? They both still get points and one team doesn't benefit from some stupid shoot-out that really doesn't reflect how the team as a whole played at all. I think ties are important and symbolize the fact two teams played hard and at the same level for 60 minutes, that's damn impressive. If you think the shoot-out is gonna bring more excitement to the NHL and counter-act the defensive nature of the game I think your wrong. Teams could just fall into complete defensive systems and then wait for the shoot-out hoping to win the game, at least with limited OT and the threat of loosing a point there is some sort of initiative to play hard in regular time and OT.

Bobby Lou is offline  
Old
11-30-2004, 11:41 AM
  #75
rebedom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 426
vCash: 500
Personally, I think they are exciting but as so many have said quite unfair to the losing team. The Quebec JRs after playing a pretty good game lost badly in the shootouts, either because they were not properly prepared and/or the Russians had a very hot goalie who grew up with shootouts. Soccer has been decided by shootouts forever.

I prefer the 4 on 4 in OV and if they are still tied then have a shootout. Let the other team's coach pick the 5 players who will shoot against his goalie. Then we would see a reverse order and maybe some bottom end guys get an opportunity to score the winning goal who would never otherwise have that chance. That would add a little more excitement to it and fans always love it when the under dog, example Krzysztof Oliwa scores the winning goal in a shootout.

Shootouts do not compliment hard working, gritty teams (Calgary) but instead reward lazy regulation time teams.

rebedom is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.