I don't understand how Burnside can argue that deciding the game 3 on 3 doesn't affect the overall integrity of the league, but the shootout does.
3 on 3 isn't hockey either.
I'd rather them switch the point systems.
I think a team should get 3 points for a win in regulation. 2 points for a win in OT. 1 point for a SO win. And losers get zero. If you lose, you don't deserve to get anything.
I think reducing the number of points you can obtain at the end of each frame would create for more exciting hockey at the end of regulation and OT. Teams will be going for it, and no one will be sitting back looking for the loser point, because it won't exist.
The league won't do this though because they like the fact that every freakin' team on earth is within a half dozen points of a playoff spot.
I can't stand when people kick and scream about things due to extreme circumstances that occur once in a blue moon.
The idea of hybrid icing makes sense, but now we're giving referees discretion to make the call.
Do you guys know how many times we'd be watching Avery or someone flying into the zone about to break up an icing and then hear a whistle? Refs will be blowing that whistle ALL THE TIME. And even if the league claims that that play won't be affected, it absolutely will be.
Then there will be times where D-men will have three steps on a guy, the ref won't blow the whistle, and the forechecker will lift his stick and negate the icing, leaving the D-man confused, and out of position, because he was assuming that his three steps were enough to get a whistle from an official that never came.
Just a bad idea IMHO.
On his power play idea and then not allowing icing the puck when penalized, I don't like that either. This league has already become a special teams league. Special teams decide things. That's why the Caps, Pens, Flyers, Sharks, etc are the best teams in the league. Do we really need to make this MORE about special teams and less about even strength? Hell, why don't we flip a coin and see which team has to play short handed all game?
I DO however like the idea of the team being penalized having to control and clear the puck out of the zone on the delayed penalty. I hate when a stick barely touches the puck when your team is buzzing with the extra man and whistle is blown.
Don't like the idea of allowing Toronto to use "common sense" to determine if a goal should be allowed. This is the freakin' NHL. If you want to be sure, add more cameras, at more angles. I'm positive you can afford to pay some tech guys enough money to figure out a way to implement more cameras in more areas to get a better view of things. You can't be allowing goals just because you think it's a goal, even though you have no proof of it. Besides, when have the folks in the NHL in Toronto ever had common sense anyway?
I don't understand how Burnside can argue that deciding the game 3 on 3 doesn't affect the overall integrity of the league, but the shootout does.
3 on 3 isn't hockey either.
I'd rather them switch the point systems.
I think a team should get 3 points for a win in regulation. 2 points for a win in OT. 1 point for a SO win. And losers get zero. If you lose, you don't deserve to get anything.
I think reducing the number of points you can obtain at the end of each frame would create for more exciting hockey at the end of regulation and OT. Teams will be going for it, and no one will be sitting back looking for the loser point, because it won't exist.
The league won't do this though because they like the fact that every freakin' team on earth is within a half dozen points of a playoff spot.
I agree, 3-on-3 and even 4-on-4 is not proper hockey. Play 5-on-5, like in POs or eliminate OT all together and go to SO.
I am for 3 point for the victory, but I am for constant number of points available for given game. What we have now is wrong, since OT/SO creates an extra point.
I would do 3 points for victory, 2- OT/SO win 1- OT/SO loss
OR 2 points for victory, 1 for OT/SO win and 0 for any loss.
This way the total will stay constant.
I agree, 3-on-3 and even 4-on-4 is not proper hockey. Play 5-on-5, like in POs or eliminate OT all together and go to SO.
I am for 3 point for the victory, but I am for constant number of points available for given game. What we have now is wrong, since OT/SO creates an extra point.
I would do 3 points for victory, 2- OT/SO win 1- OT/SO loss
OR 2 points for victory, 1 for OT/SO win and 0 for any loss.
This way the total will stay constant.
Yeah I see what you're saying, I didn't really think of it that way.
My biggest issue with it is, I don't think you deserve the equal amount for winning a game 4 on 4 or in a SO.
That's not true hockey, and to me I don't understand why you come away with the same amount of points as if you actually won a real hockey game.
I'd prefer if they made OT 5 on 5 and made it 10 minutes. I couldn't care less about the length of the game. 10 minutes will add and extra 20 or so to the game? No TV time outs. Sorry boys, instead of being back in the locker room at 9:30, you won't be there til 9:50, my condolences to you.
I'd prefer if they made OT 5 on 5 and made it 10 minutes. I couldn't care less about the length of the game. 10 minutes will add and extra 20 or so to the game? No TV time outs. Sorry boys, instead of being back in the locker room at 9:30, you won't be there til 9:50, my condolences to you.
The only rule I want added is one that requires that OT not be allowed to end until all penalties have expired. I hate that since there is really no disincentive for taking a penalty with time running out that players will nearly tackle someone to prevent a scoring chance.
The only rule I want added is one that requires that OT not be allowed to end until all penalties have expired. I hate that since there is really no disincentive for taking a penalty with time running out that players will nearly tackle someone to prevent a scoring chance.
You know...I really like that idea too. Good call.
I think a team should get 3 points for a win in regulation. 2 points for a win in OT. 1 point for a SO win. And losers get zero. If you lose, you don't deserve to get anything.
I'd be happy with this and you're right...you lose you do not deserve a point.
I'd be happy with this and you're right...you lose you do not deserve a point.
Yeah I understand the point 94 made above though about keeping the same number of points available each game.
My idea would make it so that a team like the Capitals if they win a million games in regulation might finish a million points better than other teams.
I think you'd certainly see just how good or bad or mediocre teams are though, and the standings would reflect that.
I don't think the league would go for it because the league wants every market they can to have a chance at the playoffs. They like the loser point because it keeps teams alive even if they don't deserve to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now
How about 5 min 5-on-5 with no changes?
I mean 5 on 5 to me is better than nothing. I think if your'e going to tweak it to 5 on 5 you shouldn't just stop there though.
I might be the only one, but I had no issue with ties.
“There always needs to be continuous, consistent work on finding ways to generate more offence,” Buffalo Sabres GM Darcy Regier said. “I think there is an ideal goal number – over a period of time, it’s got to be somewhere between where we are, in the mid-fives, and the Gretzky era, of over eight.
“I was talking to [Edmonton Oilers executive] Kevin Lowe [who played in that Gretzky era] about this earlier, and it needs to be somewhere in between there. Somewhere closer to the seven range than the six range."
The NHL is going to have to make some drastic fundamental changes to the game if they want to get near the 7 goals per game range. The tweaks that are being proposed now aren't going to get them anywhere near that number.
I'd honestly rather see 4on4 and then 3on3 hockey then the gimmick they call the shootout. It still allows a "team" to win the game and not an individual.
Some of the other rules are good and terrible.
I think they should make the icing automatic or keep it the same. There is too much "discretion" in this game and you are just widening the grey area more.
The one rule about choosing your faceoff opponent is ridiculous.
The faceoffs up the middle is going to destroy some of the tradition in the game and i dont like it, though i think its a pretty interesting idea.
The net smaller in the back - fine...
And one other thing that has bugged me for years. Now they want to put a another goal line inside the net to help verify goals along the line. I still don't understand, with the technology they have today, why they cant install pinhole or small HD cameras into the posts and crossbars for a perfect view of the goal line from all angles. the pipe is hollow, you run the wire and weld in the cameras with protective glass over them it cant be hard. Plus it will help aide the decision if the net is knocked off before the puck goes in. If they cant do that - then bring in the technology that the NFL uses with its first down lines. If its perfectly situated on the goal line it might be clearer once a black puck goes across completely. I think the NHL has plenty of things it could do to make a process thats already good even better. There arent too many calls they get wrong IMO, but why not make it even more full-proof?
Players get tired. Teams make bad line changes. That creates scoring chances. It’s no coincidence that 37 per cent of goals scored over the past 10 seasons were in the second period, when teams have the long change, versus 30 per cent in the first and 33 per cent in the third.
Why not just force teams to make the long change for 2 out of 3 periods as well? Or even all 3 periods? That seems like a simple way to increase scoring in the league, no?
I don't understand how Burnside can argue that deciding the game 3 on 3 doesn't affect the overall integrity of the league, but the shootout does.
3 on 3 isn't hockey either.
I'd rather them switch the point systems.
I think a team should get 3 points for a win in regulation. 2 points for a win in OT. 1 point for a SO win. And losers get zero. If you lose, you don't deserve to get anything.
I think reducing the number of points you can obtain at the end of each frame would create for more exciting hockey at the end of regulation and OT. Teams will be going for it, and no one will be sitting back looking for the loser point, because it won't exist.
The league won't do this though because they like the fact that every freakin' team on earth is within a half dozen points of a playoff spot.
i agree with what your saying...and with what 94 about points available for a game.
Tom Renny's rangers would have never made the playoffs under this points system, however
in my opinion there is no reason to have a shootout and the 1 point for an OT loss and the best way is a single 5 on 5 OT for 2 points or a Tie
however, because of the bolded, this will never happen
I'd like to see the Trapezoid removed. And I like the idea of hybrid icing a lot, I think it's a happy medium to prevent injury and still get a call, but I want to see it in action too.
Don't see what the big deal is with calling icing when a team is PKing. Seems dumb to me. Even though my team gets penalized the worst, every fan has been victim watching their team get dumb/crappy calls against, and to know there's a good chance you're going to get bit because of it isn't a smart move to keep the fans happy and keep the game competitive.
Don't know why they're complaining about hand passes in the defensive zone either. See previous paragraph.
I think it's a good rule. The puck would be in the stands every 30 seconds if it wasn't there.
If they did get rid of the delay of game, make it a defensive zone draw and don't allow the offending team a line change. Last thing on the PK you want to do is get a defensive zone draw. Lose it and other team gets a quick setup in your zone with a man up. You "ice" the puck on the PK to kill off time and get fresh legs out. So prevent fresh legs in that situation, and the team that sends it into the crowd accomplishes nothing.
I'm with robruckus on this. If you guarantee coaches an OT point, they will play for that point instead of playing for the win. It's exactly why teams play in a shell for the final 13 regulation minutes of close games today. Coaches want to make sure they walk away by banking their "free" point first.
I'm with robruckus on this. If you guarantee coaches an OT point, they will play for that point instead of playing for the win. It's exactly why teams play in a shell for the final 13 regulation minutes of close games today. Coaches want to make sure they walk away by banking their "free" point first.
I agree, but putting a difference in points between a W (3) and OTW (2) will also have teams work harder to earn that extra point as well, keeping the end of a tied game competitive. And by making OT points-wise 2-1 instead of 3-0, that "banked" point is more like a "stolen" point for not winning the game in regulation.
