HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Shootout?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2004, 12:11 PM
  #1
tytech
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,357
vCash: 500
Shootout?

While I'm sure we all agree that playoffs is a different story and a shootout in playoff hockey would be a disgrace but I'm wondering what fellow flyer fans think about the regular season.

Ties are at an all time high. I think we should do a 4 on 4, 5 minute overtime like we do now except have a sudden death shootout after. Every team has one or two snipers these days and/or good goalies. I'm not with the 5 shooters thing after every tie but having sudden death where there are maybe 1 or two shooters each game would be fun. Whenever there is a penalty shot it makes the highlights regardless of the outcome, the fans all stand up, if I'm channel surfing I stop to watch. It's the most exciting play in sports. It won't make that much of a difference for regular season standings. Just gives the winning team an extra point but is genarally fair for all teams provided it's not 5 shooters. This way, instead of having Hull, Yzerman, Datsuyk, Shannahan and Lang shoot against Sullivan, Walker, Erat (who?), Legwand and Hartnell for example you'd have Lang vs Sullivan and it could be done with that. It sucks watching exciting 4 on 4 hockey for five whole minutes and then shutting the tv off and going to bed when neither team scores.

Pros/Cons?

tytech is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 12:17 PM
  #2
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,345
vCash: 50
Pro:
a novelty

Con:
gimmick way to break a tie. If a baseball is tied after 14 innings they don't have a home run derby. the NBA doesn't have a 3 point shootout, nor does the NFL have a punt pass and kick competition

Con:
It will get old watching teams win because they have better penalty shooters. If two teams in late March are trying to make a playoffs, having a shootout to decide who makes the playoffs isn't the way to go. What makes a penalty shot so exciting is because it rarely happens.

10 minutes of overtime is better or go to 3 on 3. 5 extra minutes of 3 on 3, 4 out of 5 times a team will score

GKJ is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 12:49 PM
  #3
tytech
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Pro:
a novelty

Con:
gimmick way to break a tie. If a baseball is tied after 14 innings they don't have a home run derby. the NBA doesn't have a 3 point shootout, nor does the NFL have a punt pass and kick competition

Con:
It will get old watching teams win because they have better penalty shooters. If two teams in late March are trying to make a playoffs, having a shootout to decide who makes the playoffs isn't the way to go. What makes a penalty shot so exciting is because it rarely happens.

10 minutes of overtime is better or go to 3 on 3. 5 extra minutes of 3 on 3, 4 out of 5 times a team will score
I hate when sports are compared to one another. In baseball there is no ties period. If hockey never allowed ties this wouldn't be a topic. What would be fair in basketball where it would be one on one? If the quarterback gets illegally creamed is there anything like a penalty shot awarded no. Hockey is the only sport that uses a puck, a hockey player and a hockey goalie so lets limit the debate to hockey. Bringing up other sports as part of the debate is useless.

Some teams have better penaly shooters? Name one! You are going to grab nothing but stats of the games hottest goal scorers. Therefore Atlanta and Columbus would have a few more stats thanks to Kovalchuk and Nash. You wouldn't need five skaters you would need one or two and every team has one or two. Also there is never a guarantee. Players score on what, %13 of penaly shots? A guy like Cole could win the game if ONeill didn't even come close last game etc.

Playoff runs would be even more exciting. If Philly was fighting for a playoff birth and it was tied after 4 on 4 I would love the extra chance to get a point.
A shootout makes just as much sense as your arguement going 3 on 3 after 5 minutes of 4 0n 4. Neither are part of hocky yet both happen once and a blue moon, except the penalty shot is more exciting.

Not too mention the amount of people that would start watching this sport more often. It definitley would make the game more exciting. Maybe all of us hard cores don't want the game touched but NHL suffers in the big market when softball games or women's basketball has a larger audience. The attraction to the game needs to change. It can't be something liek removing the red line or whatever. That's not going to make 500,000 more people watch the sport all of a sudden. Shootouts just might.


Last edited by tytech: 03-15-2004 at 12:54 PM.
tytech is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 12:54 PM
  #4
BrindA17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pa
Posts: 1,518
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BrindA17
A shootout is a cruel slap-in-the-face to goaltenders. To basically single them out and hope for them to stop free breakaways is wrong. Sometimes a tie is deserving. If two teams play hard and the goalies stay strong, it seems unjust to decide a game on a shootout.

BrindA17 is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 12:57 PM
  #5
tytech
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrindA17
A shootout is a cruel slap-in-the-face to goaltenders. To basically single them out and hope for them to stop free breakaways is wrong. Sometimes a tie is deserving. If two teams play hard and the goalies stay strong, it seems unjust to decide a game on a shootout.
That's a valid point except that the ratio is hugely in favour of the goalies. If it singles out anyone it singles out the skaters. Most penalty shots are stopped. A tie is deserving at times but so are wins that end up in ties or losses that should have been ties etc.. etc.. etc..

tytech is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 01:04 PM
  #6
BrindA17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pa
Posts: 1,518
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BrindA17
A hockey game is played with 8-12 players on the ice, not just 2 (shooter vs goalie). Therefore, deciding the result of the game with just 2 players doesn't seem right.

Edit: 8-12, not 4-12 :p


Last edited by BrindA17: 03-15-2004 at 01:20 PM.
BrindA17 is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 01:13 PM
  #7
tytech
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrindA17
A hockey game is played with 4-12 players on the ice, not just 2 (shooter vs goalie). Therefore, deciding the result of the game with just 2 players doesn't seem right.
I've never seen only 4 players on the ice

Believe me, I see your point. We are hardcore hockey followers, specially if we are on this thing arguing opinions, and we like the game the way it is. Unfortunately the rest of N.A. doesn't think it's a fun sport to watch and the game is really suffering. Regadless of our beliefs of what hockey is all about this will make the game more exciting and draw more fans.

tytech is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 01:19 PM
  #8
BrindA17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pa
Posts: 1,518
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BrindA17
DOH! I meant 8, I dunno why I typed 4.

BrindA17 is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 01:24 PM
  #9
donelikedinner
Registered User
 
donelikedinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a house
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tytech
I've never seen only 4 players on the ice

Believe me, I see your point. We are hardcore hockey followers, specially if we are on this thing arguing opinions, and we like the game the way it is. Unfortunately the rest of N.A. doesn't think it's a fun sport to watch and the game is really suffering. Regadless of our beliefs of what hockey is all about this will make the game more exciting and draw more fans.
the way to make it more exciting is to contract the number of teams. think of the talent spread over 24 teams instead of 30, with fewer teams, the nhl would not have lame ducks like pittsburgh playing with an ahl roster.

donelikedinner is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 01:52 PM
  #10
tytech
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by donelikedinner
the way to make it more exciting is to contract the number of teams. think of the talent spread over 24 teams instead of 30, with fewer teams, the nhl would not have lame ducks like pittsburgh playing with an ahl roster.
That's not an answer. The NHL was not popular when there was 6 teams. Detroit and Colorado will play each other and end up in a low scoring tie. Teams will still have defensive systems etc. Something needs to be done about the game itself. You can't say next year that 16 teams are not allowed to play anymore.

You mention Pittsburgh but they are top three teams right now.

tytech is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 02:25 PM
  #11
anonymous*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Old Skool, bub!
Posts: 305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tytech
That's not an answer. The NHL was not popular when there was 6 teams. Detroit and Colorado will play each other and end up in a low scoring tie. Teams will still have defensive systems etc. Something needs to be done about the game itself. You can't say next year that 16 teams are not allowed to play anymore.

You mention Pittsburgh but they are top three teams right now.
How long ago were there 6 teams and how many TV's were there then? How many channels? Wouldn't it figure that it would be more popular in the regions it was played then because of so little media at the time? People would go see them rather than listen to them on the radio or see them on a fuzzy broadcast. It was a different time.

Ties being at an all time high isn't really a concern. It could easily drop and then this argument is moot. If you don't like ties, that's one thing, and one opinion. Changes probably need to be made, but in my opinion they don't need to be made because of ties. Just my opinion.

anonymous* is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 02:32 PM
  #12
tytech
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymous
How long ago were there 6 teams and how many TV's were there then? How many channels? Wouldn't it figure that it would be more popular in the regions it was played then because of so little media at the time? People would go see them rather than listen to them on the radio or see them on a fuzzy broadcast. It was a different time.

Ties being at an all time high isn't really a concern. It could easily drop and then this argument is moot. If you don't like ties, that's one thing, and one opinion. Changes probably need to be made, but in my opinion they don't need to be made because of ties. Just my opinion.
So if we went back to 6 teams in the hockey market East that would get just as many interested fans in the Westa ssuming everyone has a tv? We have one person to thank for the so-called booming interest out west and that is Gretzky. Hockey didn't get popular because of televisions. It got popular because fans supported their cities and it was originally suppose to be a win-win situation for business men wanting to bring an NHL team to a large city of supposed supporters. Once Gretz played out west it brought viable markets to the Kings, Sharks, Ducks, Avalanche, Stars etc.

tytech is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 02:57 PM
  #13
anonymous*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Old Skool, bub!
Posts: 305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tytech
So if we went back to 6 teams in the hockey market East that would get just as many interested fans in the Westa ssuming everyone has a tv? We have one person to thank for the so-called booming interest out west and that is Gretzky. Hockey didn't get popular because of televisions. It got popular because fans supported their cities and it was originally suppose to be a win-win situation for business men wanting to bring an NHL team to a large city of supposed supporters. Once Gretz played out west it brought viable markets to the Kings, Sharks, Ducks, Avalanche, Stars etc.
I was only trying to point out that your position on 6 teams and the popularity of hockey has a couple holes in it.

I also don't agree with a blanket statement of TV's having nothing to do with popularity. I became a fan because I saw it on TV. The '80 Olympics generated interest because it was on TV. There are 50 states, how many cities? How many towns? How many teams? If not for TV people in ares that can't get to or afford tickets to games have a way to watch. If they couldn't watch, how would they remain fans? Or become fans?

The Kings were actually around a while before Gretzky and from what I hear Anaheim fans are as fair weather as they come, the ones that live there anyway (that's what I hear, not stating fact) Colorado had a team called the Rockies that moved in 1983 I think it was (that was before Gretzky moved to LA) and Atlanta had a team that moved to Calgary. Brian Leetch is from Texas isn't he? If so then there must have been some fans there before Gretzky moved to LA, right?

I don't know what makes OR made it popular and I don't think you do either. Regardless, isn't this off the subject anyway?

anonymous* is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 03:05 PM
  #14
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,345
vCash: 50
Anaheim fans are more than fair weather, they're pretty much bandwagoners (most not all). The only sell outs they get (in a normal year) are when the Kings and Red Wings come in because the Kings and Wings fans outnumber the Duck fans. Other than that, most Duck fans are Kings fans who can't get tickets. Some of the Ducks playoff games went unsold out (so did the Devils too though)

GKJ is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 03:42 PM
  #15
tytech
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,357
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=go kim johnsson]Anaheim fans are more than fair weather, they're pretty much bandwagoners (most not all). The only sell outs they get (in a normal year) are when the Kings and Red Wings come in because the Kings and Wings fans outnumber the Duck fans. Other than that, most Duck fans are Kings fans who can't get tickets. Some of the Ducks playoff games went unsold out (so did the Devils too though)[/QUOTE


I spent a month in LA 4-5 years ago and it was no problem getting tickets for any of the games I saw. I doubt mighty duck fans are kings fans who can't get tickets.

tytech is offline  
Old
03-15-2004, 04:00 PM
  #16
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 112,345
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tytech
I spent a month in LA 4-5 years ago and it was no problem getting tickets for any of the games I saw. I doubt mighty duck fans are kings fans who can't get tickets.

That's because it was 4-5 years ago and the Kings weren't good either.

GKJ 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 07:47 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.