HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

THN confirms having a shootout is a "done deal" when the NHL returns

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2004, 05:34 PM
  #151
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
So your telling me games aren't tied at the end of nine innings? Or in the NBA's case, the end of regulation?

Use your heads guys. I was obviously poking fun at the NHL by saying those leagues should change from their current tie breaking formats to my particular examples. In all cases they would be taking one aspect of the game, which although an interesting part of the game, should not be used as a tie breaker because it is just one aspect of the game. Get it?
yeah, but continous overtime in the nhl just isn't practical at all. It works in the nba because its pretty tough to hav ea tie many times over when there is so much scoring, and in baseball, its somewhat the same, but it doesn't require the same level of physical play so they can play the next day. Plus, 3 innings of baseball usually presents an unbalanced score, and equates to a full period of hockey, and a 12 inning baseball game is pretty rare. At the end of the 3 extra innings, there is usually a victor, at the end of a full 20 min hockey period there could easily be no winner.

Fish on The Sand is online now  
Old
12-14-2004, 09:21 PM
  #152
Arastiroth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Manhattan
Country: United States
Posts: 1,406
vCash: 500
While I'm not completely against shootouts, I'm not really for them either. I'm more of a "wait a see" mentality over this. I, however, wouldn't be surprised if the NHL is doing this with plans of it only being one season. The NHL is in desperate need for some good pub right now, and a year with a regular season shootout may be enough to pull a lot of fans into the game since I'm sure they're expecting to lose a lot of fans from the lockout. If this is their plan, I'd be impressed with the thought.

As for the idea itself, I don't think anyone should be overly upset about this. I mean, if the NHL thinks it can draw more fans this way, and therefore make more money -- who is to fault them? It is a business, and they'll run it in a way to make the most money possible. I don't like that so much, but it's hard to really blame them.

Arastiroth is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 10:17 PM
  #153
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
shootouts are a great idea. i don't knwo why u guys are against it. the one thing i do have a problem with it is that teams may try to push the game to a shootout to win. to prevent this, i think the league should go to the 3 poitns for a win, 2 points for a overtime win, 1 point for an overtime loss method. in the case of a shootout, i'd say the winning team gets 2 points while the loser gets 0 points. in this method, a team can attain less and less points the longer the game goes.

but for the most part, i'm tired of paying money for ties. there is nothig more boring then dropping $40 on tickets only to come in knowing as much about the game as when you leav.e

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 10:48 PM
  #154
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,764
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
shootouts are a great idea. i don't knwo why u guys are against it. the one thing i do have a problem with it is that teams may try to push the game to a shootout to win. to prevent this, i think the league should go to the 3 poitns for a win, 2 points for a overtime win, 1 point for an overtime loss method. in the case of a shootout, i'd say the winning team gets 2 points while the loser gets 0 points. in this method, a team can attain less and less points the longer the game goes.

but for the most part, i'm tired of paying money for ties. there is nothig more boring then dropping $40 on tickets only to come in knowing as much about the game as when you leav.e
I disagree with the 3 points for a win, but just take away any losses for losing in overtime. That wouldn't work without shootouts, but if you do have shootouts, it could work. Plus, it will force teams to carry at least some skill players on the roster and in turn increase the skill in regulation play.

Fish on The Sand is online now  
Old
12-14-2004, 10:57 PM
  #155
Reilly311
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 1,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
the one thing i do have a problem with it is that teams may try to push the game to a shootout to win.

I don't know about that. Unless you have Hasek or Brodeur in net, a shootout can be pretty random.

Reilly311 is offline  
Old
12-14-2004, 11:31 PM
  #156
Shane
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,979
vCash: 500
As long as we're championing the games of baseball, football and the like, here's an idea:

Scrap the points system entirely. It's ridiculous and I hate it. Winning percentage to determine the standings.


Last edited by Shane: 12-15-2004 at 12:12 AM.
Shane is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 12:02 AM
  #157
Reilly311
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 1,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane
As long as we're championing the games of baseball, football and the like, here's an idea:

Scrap the points system entirely. It's riduculous and I hate it. Winning percentage to determine the standings.

yes, but if they still want the point system, I'd rather have a team get 2 points for a win, and 0 for a loss regardless if it's a shootout loss. Imagine how exciting and desperate teams would play every night. I mean a regulation shootout would be exciting because one team is going to walk away with 2 points and the other with nothing. It would put more emphasis on the 65 min game.

Reilly311 is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 03:12 AM
  #158
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand
In hockey you could never do that. As evidenced by the playoffs, games frequently go into multiple overtime games, and you couldn't do that if you have back to back games. I would be behind the idea of continuous overtime if it wasn't for that.
Of course you could do it. This isn't the 50's any more, teams aren't taking public transportation to the next game. They all have charter flights that don't take off until they're needed. And if they did have a long game, big whoop. They sleep on the plane, skip afternoon practise, and play tomorrow.

Players are far more fit than they used to be. They have much lighter equipment. They have modern energy drinks and bars for managing food and fluid loss, etc. There are several extra players on the roster, so teams can rest players more than back in the old days. Fourth lines didn't even exist back then.

The majority of overtime games are decided quickly. In the playoffs, only a few games go long, but much of that is because of the intensity of the game. You can't afford to risk anything, so teams play ultra-conservative for 2 or 3 periods. That attitude simply doesn't exist in a regular season overtime. In addition, you'd have 4 on 4 overtime for that entire time, which is much more open and offensive. It would practically be impossible to have an overtime last multiple periods with fantastic scoring chances being traded end to end like most OT games.

Nope, the old arguments against sudden death OT simply don't wash nowadays.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 09:12 AM
  #159
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,961
vCash: 500
The Point System.

My Proposal:

At the end of the season, if you have more wins then the other teams in your divison, you win it. The division winning teams are then ranked 1, 2, and 3, based on which team has more wins. The remaining teams are then ranked based on which team has more wins. The three division winners and the top 5 ranked non-division winners make the playoffs. I know, I know, it's complicated.

rt is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 09:40 AM
  #160
Steve L*
Registered User
 
Steve L*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton, England
Country: England
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingPurpleDinosaur
shootouts are a great idea. i don't knwo why u guys are against it. the one thing i do have a problem with it is that teams may try to push the game to a shootout to win. to prevent this, i think the league should go to the 3 poitns for a win, 2 points for a overtime win, 1 point for an overtime loss method. in the case of a shootout, i'd say the winning team gets 2 points while the loser gets 0 points. in this method, a team can attain less and less points the longer the game goes.
That way you could see teams conceding goals on purpose in OT just to get the 1 point for a loss rather than risk 0 points for a shootout loss.

Its also unfair that a team manages to hold the other team for 65 minutes gets 0 points while a team that holds the other team for 61 minutes gets a point.

Steve L* is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 11:51 AM
  #161
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve L
That way you could see teams conceding goals on purpose in OT just to get the 1 point for a loss rather than risk 0 points for a shootout loss.

Its also unfair that a team manages to hold the other team for 65 minutes gets 0 points while a team that holds the other team for 61 minutes gets a point.

althoguh i see your point (it's a good one too), i cannot imagine ONE team that will concede a goal on purpose because they think they have more of a chance at tieing the OT and losing the shutout then having a chance at winning the game or winning the shutout. sure, it may happen, but it's a pretty sure bet that it's not goin to be a tactic that any team uses.

if ur argument holds any weight, then our current system would recommend ALL teams push their games to OT so that they are at least guaranteed one point, since our system gives out the most points in OT wins. and i havne't seen one team use that as a tactic.

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 11:53 AM
  #162
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
 
KingPurpleDinosaur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: irvine, ca
Posts: 2,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand
I disagree with the 3 points for a win, but just take away any losses for losing in overtime. That wouldn't work without shootouts, but if you do have shootouts, it could work. Plus, it will force teams to carry at least some skill players on the roster and in turn increase the skill in regulation play.
haha, what?!?!

KingPurpleDinosaur is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 12:06 PM
  #163
DeleteThisAccount
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: And eating brains
Country: United States
Posts: 1,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOVALEV10
Yeah I get your point but what would you rather have? A tie after watching 65 minute game and see no winner or have an exciting shootout and see a winner?
I know this is late (and it wasn't directed at me ), but yes, I personally would prefer ties.

DeleteThisAccount is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 12:09 PM
  #164
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 115,055
vCash: 1045
I would only support this if a there was a 10 minute 4 on 4 and then a 5 minute 3 on 3 and even if they were still tied then they deserve to be tied.



Shootouts are stupid. So much for Bettman saying this would never happen either, comparing shooutouts to free throw competitions, home run derby and punt pass and kick.



The NHL is going down the crapper even further.

GKJ is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 12:16 PM
  #165
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battousai
I know this is late (and it wasn't directed at me ), but yes, I personally would prefer ties.
I'd rather see a tie, as well.

rt is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 01:07 PM
  #166
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 38,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
Of course you could do it. This isn't the 50's any more, teams aren't taking public transportation to the next game. They all have charter flights that don't take off until they're needed. And if they did have a long game, big whoop. They sleep on the plane, skip afternoon practise, and play tomorrow.

Players are far more fit than they used to be. They have much lighter equipment. They have modern energy drinks and bars for managing food and fluid loss, etc. There are several extra players on the roster, so teams can rest players more than back in the old days. Fourth lines didn't even exist back then.

The majority of overtime games are decided quickly. In the playoffs, only a few games go long, but much of that is because of the intensity of the game. You can't afford to risk anything, so teams play ultra-conservative for 2 or 3 periods. That attitude simply doesn't exist in a regular season overtime. In addition, you'd have 4 on 4 overtime for that entire time, which is much more open and offensive. It would practically be impossible to have an overtime last multiple periods with fantastic scoring chances being traded end to end like most OT games.

Nope, the old arguments against sudden death OT simply don't wash nowadays.
1. The players would never go for it. It's an incredibly high amount of extra work. In the playoffs no one cares because it's about winning, but the regular season is about $$$.

2. The owners would never go for it. They would have to dish out a ton of overtime pay to all the arena workers and so on. Plus many of the dual-sport arenas take time to convert from hockey one day to basketball or a concert the next day.

Epsilon is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 01:10 PM
  #167
7bucs
Registered User
 
7bucs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ..when Darcy is gone
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand
In hockey you could never do that. As evidenced by the playoffs, games frequently go into multiple overtime games, and you couldn't do that if you have back to back games. I would be behind the idea of continuous overtime if it wasn't for that.
MLB plays pretty much every day. They go into long extra innings too, not all games are decided in the 10th inning. There were a handful of games last season where they played the equivalent of two games before a winner was decided. If they keep the 4-on-4 format, the regular season sudden death OT games would be ended within a reasonable amount of time. They shouldn't run more than one or two 20 minute OT periods with the open space that 4-on-4 allows. Can anyone see any games going more than two 20 minute OT periods? Is that too much to ask a hockey player to play the equivalent of 1.5 or 2 games every once in a while?

How about this, if you want the games to end in regulation, re-construct the pts. system.

2 pts. for a win
0 pts. for a loss
0 pts. for a tie

I think that will make the teams try to end it in regulation and overtime. Make it a 20 minute OT period. If they can't solve the game in 4 periods they don't get any points.

I am tired of teams getting rewarded for not trying to score. The game is backwards now, half of the teams are trying 100% to prevent goals than trying 100% to score them.

7bucs is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 01:11 PM
  #168
Brad*
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 13,887
vCash: 500
I don't think having a shootout is a big deal at all, considering it's only for the regular season and only after the regular overtime has expired. I don't know about you guys, but I don't like paying the ridiculous amount of money you have to pay to see games these days and watching a 1-1 tie.

But such is the case here with HF, one person posts that they don't like it and 50 people post the same thing after him.

Brad* is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 01:12 PM
  #169
7bucs
Registered User
 
7bucs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ..when Darcy is gone
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,194
vCash: 500
1. The players would never go for it. It's an incredibly high amount of extra work. In the playoffs no one cares because it's about winning, but the regular season is about $$$.

Just think of all the extra beer & food sales if the concessions are opened for another period...

7bucs is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 01:27 PM
  #170
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 38,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7bucs
1. The players would never go for it. It's an incredibly high amount of extra work. In the playoffs no one cares because it's about winning, but the regular season is about $$$.

Just think of all the extra beer & food sales if the concessions are opened for another period...
One other thing is I think a lot more people will pack up and take off early than we see in the playoffs, since there's little riding on the game and it may be getting late.

Epsilon is offline  
Old
12-15-2004, 01:33 PM
  #171
7bucs
Registered User
 
7bucs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ..when Darcy is gone
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon
One other thing is I think a lot more people will pack up and take off early than we see in the playoffs, since there's little riding on the game and it may be getting late.
If they went to the game to see a winner, I'd think they'd stay.

But, I am sure there are some fans like that. Never understood the point of going to a game if you are just going to pick up and leave at a designated time. If hockey is just a way to fill 3 hours of your time, then I don't think I care if those kind of fans are catered to at all...

7bucs is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 02:57 PM
  #172
c-carp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 9,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accord
The Hockey News has confirmed that it's pretty much a done deal that whenever the NHL returns, the shootout will be used to decide games if the 5 minute 4-on-4 OT period failed to produce a winner.

http://www.thn.com/en/headlines/deta...t=954945254360

Dont like that at all myself.

c-carp is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 11:34 PM
  #173
Waveburner
RIP Luc
 
Waveburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In Morrison's house.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,490
vCash: 500
Not sure if its mentioned, as the thread is too long, but I hope the NHL intends on now giving out 3 points every game. If OT games are now guarenteed to be worth 3 points because of shootouts, then a regulation win should be worth 3.

Waveburner is offline  
Old
12-31-2004, 11:46 PM
  #174
Accord
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: South Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 1,328
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Accord
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7bucs
Just think of all the extra beer & food sales if the concessions are opened for another period...
Most NHL arenas stop serving beer after the 2nd period .

Accord is offline  
Old
01-01-2005, 12:54 PM
  #175
Volcanologist
Used Register
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cosmodrome
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,925
vCash: 500
The problem with shootouts, even in the regular season, is that important things, team achievements, can be won or lost on something that doesn't involve the team per se.

You can say that it evens out statistically, but how happy would you be if your team lost home ice advantage or worse missed the playoffs over a shootout?

It's just not right that things like division and conference titles and playoff seeding, things that teams fight all year long to get, should be lost on a shootout with the teams sitting on the bench watching breakaway drills.

The shootout is another "glowing puck". No thanks Gary.

Volcanologist 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 03:02 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.