Corp000085 Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 its just not hockey... the nhl needs to consider extending the OT to 10 minutes 4-on-4 for the reg. season and then having a shootout... or have a 4-on-4 5 minute ot followed by a 3-on-3 5 minute ot followed by a shootout. Anything to extend the OT and lessen the chance of the shootout. I know that they are a means to an end (elimination of the tied game), but after a tied and very climactic hockey game, it sucks to have the ultimate anti-climactic shootout end the game. I'd love to hear some opinions on the topic. I'm not just writing this cause we lost either... if memory serves me correctly, that boston game where we came back from 1-4 to tie it and send it to ot and the shootout... kotalik scored the winner, and i didn't even care that much. an OT winner is 10000x more dramatic than some shooter roofing the puck over a frozen goalie without having to deke a defenseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I think they should have ten minutes of 4-on-4 OT, then suspend the top scorer for each team if they are still tied... No really, I would like to see the OT extended to 10 minutes at 4-on-4, and if still tied, no one gets a point. Screw this rewarding teams for not losing crap. You want points - go for the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Greenstein Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I love the shootout. I enjoy the fact that there is a winner every night. Hockey is one of the only sports in the American landscape (I love English soccer, but I'm not counting it for this discussion) that doesn't end with a winner with 90% regularity. I enjoy the fact that there is a winner and a loser every night, that's why we love sports. I do agree that a 10 minute 4-on-4 session would be awesome because I find that the 4-on-4 is awesome. Heck, when the lockout was going on, I was one of the few who actually was hoping that the whole game would go to 4-on-4 in an effort to increase scoring. But shootouts are very enjoyable to me. And yes, I'm an old-school fan, one who watched the 1st hockey game of my life in the great Aud in downtown Buffalo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Definitely make the OT period longer (10 min would be good), but shootouts are fine. On a related note: I personally think (and I'm probably not the first) that the point structure should be changed to: 3 points for regulation win 2 points for OT/SO win 1 point for OT/SO loss 0 points for regulation loss This would reduce the effective benefit of that extra point (1/3 of a regulation win, not 1/2) and would fix the number of points allocated per game at 3 (instead of 2 for games decided in regulation and 3 for those decided in OT/SO). Would be interesting to recalculate the standing based on that figure (have to find a source for the OT win count of each team). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I like the shootout. I would like a longer OT period, and quite honestly, I do not like the "loser point." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dusty west Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 im a big fan of the shootout. but, im from rochester and have been watching the shootout since the 04-05 season when the nhl had its lockout. the ahl have alwasy ran with a five man shootout. this to me makes way more sense because you really need to have at least two guys score on most nights. it also lends to advantages to being more balanced as a team, like the sabres and the great o4-05 amerks team(pomniville, roy, vanek-rookie of the year award-,taylor, peters-brother of andrew-chris thorburn.- and of course miller!) with three shooters you can really send out your first line and most likely win. like the cuurent pittsburgh team which may boast the current best and youngest first line. (minus-the tampa bay line) so ya i think it should be five shooters instead of three. and for the ten minute overtimes im into also. i want to watch alot of hockey and have a winner or loser and one night. saweeet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryg Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Why dont we can the shoot out and instead have the teams each bring out their heavyweights and settle it at Center Ice. It would bring fighting back-which fans Love and it's as valid a way to decide a winner as a shootout or a skating contest or a flip of a coin. Or how about this one...play the first OT 4 on 4 and if there's no winner, play 5 minutes 3 on 3 and if there's still no winner go to 5 minutes of 2 on 2 and keep going until it's just the goalies slinging the puck back and forth at each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Enabler Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I like the shootout. I would like a longer OT period, and quite honestly, I do not like the "loser point." Exactly,every night teams just lay up for one :bag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I don't hate the shootouts, but is it just me or are teams becoming more conservative in OT and hope they can win the game in the shootout? Even though it is 4 on 4, I am finding that they have become boring more often than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Exactly,every night teams just lay up for one :bag: So...playing 60 minutes of hockey and winding up tied is "laying up?" I don't get that logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I like the shootout - but I grew up when most teams played for the tie on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Eastern Conference Standings without the loser point: 1. Buffalo: 88 points 2. NJ: 84 points 3. Tampa Bay: 78 points 4. Ottawa: 80 points 5. Pittsburgh: 76 points 6. Atlanta: 74 points 7. Carolina: 70 points 8. Montreal: 70 points 9. Islanders: 68 points Toronto: 68 points Rangers: 68 points 12. Boston: 66 points 13. Florida: 58 points 14. Washington: 48 points 15. Philadelphia: 38 points Slightly different picture. Some teams are in different positions, some leads are bigger, etc. I know a lot of critics of the shootout say "What if some team makes the playoffs on a shootout win..." What if some team makes the playoffs on an overtime loss!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 Why dont we can the shoot out and instead have the teams each bring out their heavyweights and settle it at Center Ice. It would bring fighting back-which fans Love and it's as valid a way to decide a winner as a shootout or a skating contest or a flip of a coin. Or how about this one...play the first OT 4 on 4 and if there's no winner, play 5 minutes 3 on 3 and if there's still no winner go to 5 minutes of 2 on 2 and keep going until it's just the goalies slinging the puck back and forth at each other? lol that would certainly be something to see. the sabres would resign ray just in case of an OT situation :rolleyes: "fighting for the ottawa senators, ray emery!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudz Posted March 14, 2007 Report Share Posted March 14, 2007 I just remember going to games with a 1-1 tie. Nothing sucked more than going to a game and getting a tie. You can at least bitch about a loss. It just felt like the game didn't have closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goodfella25 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 The reason I hate shootouts is because I feel for the tough, shut-down, stay-at-home defensemen who work their off all game long trying to hold the opposing skill players in check...then all they can do is watch as those same players get free breakaways on their goalie! It's BS. Continuous 4-4 OT would be phenomenal. To me, the NHL just added shootouts as a way to play to the casual fan, not the die-hards. Sorry if that offends anyone, but it is just another example of the NHL "" out to try and attract a new fan base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 You know what always got me? Not so much now with the shootout points, but about 4 years ago when they added the OT loss point, a team could theoretically lose all their games in overtime and still sneak into the last playoff spot. Sure it's unlikely, but just the chance that a team with no wins on the year could still make the playoffs is ridiculous. 0-0-82. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawerchuk Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I disagree. I hated the tie and a shootout awards a winner. However, my thinking is this: If you win in regulation = 2pts. If you make it to OT and lose you get NOTHING and the winner gets 2pts. If its tied after the OT frame, the shootout points stay the same (2 for winner, 1 for loser). Keep the OT 5mins, not longer. The logic on the OT in my opinion, is that teams will try harder to win it in OT, get the 2pts while their opponent gets 0. Now if I just had the NHL rules commision's phone number lying around here somewhere.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seth Greenstein Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I disagree. I hated the tie and a shootout awards a winner. However, my thinking is this: If you win in regulation = 2pts. If you make it to OT and lose you get NOTHING and the winner gets 2pts. If its tied after the OT frame, the shootout points stay the same (2 for winner, 1 for loser). Keep the OT 5mins, not longer. The logic on the OT in my opinion, is that teams will try harder to win it in OT, get the 2pts while their opponent gets 0. Now if I just had the NHL rules commision's phone number lying around here somewhere.... I disagree, if there is a 2pt/0pt spread in OT, you'll still see road teams play for the shootout because they'll get the 1 point. That's why giving both teams a point at the end of regulation opens the game up for the extra point. It's a little unstable, but I'm ok with it. I also disagree that the shootout is for the casual fan. I've been watching hockey since I was 3 or 4 years old. I love hockey and have followed it even in places where there's almost no hockey coverage, like my current locale of Houston. But from day one, I was 100% on board with the shootout. I like having a winner and loser for every game, and it's unbearable watching two teams go into a shell in OT because no one wants to lose the extra point. The only tweak I'd make to the system is to make the OT 10 minutes at 4-on-4. That would allow some real flying around and it would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I disagree. I hated the tie and a shootout awards a winner. However, my thinking is this: If you win in regulation = 2pts. If you make it to OT and lose you get NOTHING and the winner gets 2pts. If its tied after the OT frame, the shootout points stay the same (2 for winner, 1 for loser). Keep the OT 5mins, not longer. The logic on the OT in my opinion, is that teams will try harder to win it in OT, get the 2pts while their opponent gets 0. Now if I just had the NHL rules commision's phone number lying around here somewhere.... I agree with this assessment. This is what I've been saying, I don't agree with the point in an OT loss. You get to OT but lose, big deal, you still lost. No point. However, if both teams get to a shootout, it could go either way, so the losing team should still get a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I HATE the idea of awarding a point to the losers. I think that idea promotes crappy hockey, in the sense that a lesser-talented team can trap, left-wing lock and clutch & grab their way to a point most nights, and stay in playoff contention for much of the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopeleslyobvious Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I HATE the idea of awarding a point to the losers. I think that idea promotes crappy hockey, in the sense that a lesser-talented team can trap, left-wing lock and clutch & grab their way to a point most nights, and stay in playoff contention for much of the year. I wouldn't mind going to a 3 point system: 3 points for regulation or OT winner. 2 points for shootout winner. 1 point for shootout loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 I could live with that. I think that the 2-pt/1-pt system keeps it too close, and rewards losers more than it helps the winner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 The reason I hate shootouts is because I feel for the tough, shut-down, stay-at-home defensemen who work their off all game long trying to hold the opposing skill players in check...then all they can do is watch as those same players get free breakaways on their goalie! It's BS. Continuous 4-4 OT would be phenomenal. To me, the NHL just added shootouts as a way to play to the casual fan, not the die-hards. Sorry if that offends anyone, but it is just another example of the NHL "" out to try and attract a new fan base. Big, stay at home defensemen aren't on the ice for 4 on 4s either. So if that's the big reason you dislike shootouts, an extended OT period 4-4 isn't going to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jad1 Posted March 15, 2007 Report Share Posted March 15, 2007 nm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewsabresfan Posted March 16, 2007 Report Share Posted March 16, 2007 Love the thought of losing the shoot out and going to a modified, longer OT - w/no loser point ( ties when all else fails...though it would be nice to let them play it out...) The 4-5 hour marathons are sweet, but most fans can't hang with that (not to mention the TV networks) I was there for the last game of '99 (NO GOAL!) and the fans were falling asleep in their seats after the 2nd OT(but they didn't leave) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.