PASabreFan Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 It has little to do with whether or not you like losing shootouts though. That five minutes of 4-on-4 is some of the most entertaining hockey you see all year. Much like the typical Inkman-Spndnchz encounter, it's over before it even starts. We need more of that (the hockey, not the other thing). Yeah, but as more games go to a shootout, I think the overtimes have gotten less entertaining. I've felt that way the last couple of seasons vs. the first couple of seasons after the lockout. Of course it might just be the Sabres! I just think coaches are always going to try to take the safest route to that extra point. You can put two guys a side out there, and somehow the coaches will figure out how to defend it. Too many Ruffs still in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billfold100 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Yeah, but as more games go to a shootout, I think the overtimes have gotten less entertaining. I've felt that way the last couple of seasons vs. the first couple of seasons after the lockout. Of course it might just be the Sabres! I just think coaches are always going to try to take the safest route to that extra point. You can put two guys a side out there, and somehow the coaches will figure out how to defend it. Too many Ruffs still in the game. Agreed. No overtime. Each team gets 1/2 point for a tie. Or go the college football route and give each team a 2 minute power play (overtime pp creates a lot of excitement). If one team scores and the other doesn't it's over. If neither or both score, overtime continues under the same format. If a team scores short handed they win. 2 points to winner. 0 for loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cereal Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Or go the college football route and give each team a 2 minute power play (overtime pp creates a lot of excitement). If one team scores and the other doesn't it's over. If neither or both score, overtime continues under the same format. If a team scores short handed they win. 2 points to winner. 0 for loser. Wow, that would actually be really sweet to see! Unfortunately, not even close to plausible, since you could easily go into four or five rounds of OT. And in the NHL, they don't typically have 6 days off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregkash Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 I'd like to overhaul the point system 3 points for a win in Regulation or OT 2 Points for a win in SO 1 Point for a loss in SO 0 Points for a loss in Regulation or OT There's extra incentive to win in regulation and OT and a cost if you don't. Hockey is a team game and shootouts are not team based, it's an arbitrary way to decide games, I see why they did it, ties stink, so I think they should modify the point scale above to award teams that go for a win rather than turtling because they have a great goalie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 8, 2010 Report Share Posted June 8, 2010 Yeah, but as more games go to a shootout, I think the overtimes have gotten less entertaining. I've felt that way the last couple of seasons vs. the first couple of seasons after the lockout. Of course it might just be the Sabres! I just think coaches are always going to try to take the safest route to that extra point. You can put two guys a side out there, and somehow the coaches will figure out how to defend it. Too many Ruffs still in the game. I don't mean this to sound the least bit insulting, but I have absolutely no idea what you're watching. The end of regulation, sure, but I can't remember seeing a boring 5 minutes of OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 1 - PRIOR to the game coaches submit a list of all 18 skaters for the shootout. 2 - OT is changed to 3-3 for 5 minutes(maybe even make it 6 or 7 minutes). Guaranteed there will be a dramatic decrease in number of shootouts, and one heck of an exciting OT. 3 - NO zamboni between OT & the SO. This "stop in play" zaps all life out of the crowd. The ice is the same for both teams. Deal with it. 4 - Get rid of the "loser" point. If you lose in regulation, OT or SO you get NOTHING! FIRE AWAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Just get rid of them and let the game end in a tie if it has to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Just get rid of them and let the game end in a tie if it has to. I'm with you on this. The shame of tying should be enough to motivate teams to try and win the game. This whole OT/shootout thing makes the last minutes of regulation pointless. Play for the win or don't. It's up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korab rules Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 1 - PRIOR to the game coaches submit a list of all 18 skaters for the shootout. 2 - OT is changed to 3-3 for 5 minutes(maybe even make it 6 or 7 minutes). Guarantee there will be a dramatic decrease in number of shootouts, and one heck of a exciting OT. 3 - NO zamboni between OT & the SO. This "stop in play" zaps all life out of the crowd. The ice is the same for both teams. Deal with it. 4 - Get rid of the "loser" point. If you lose in regulation, OT or SO you get NOTHING! FIRE AWAY! 1 - who cares. What does this accomplish? 2 - agreed. Imagine Ennis 3 v 3 - that would be fun. 3 - if you lose the ice scrape, you will also lose some of the skill invoved in the shootout - they can't chance some of the moves they make on crappy ice, which it certainly will be after 5 6 or 7 additional minutes of hockey. 4. Disagree strongly. Did you like the boring, safe late 3rd period and OT periods in the bad old days? They would return if you took away the loser point. Make all games 3 point games if you want, but don't take away the loser point or the coaches will suck the fun out of the format you are proposing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 1. Meh, I think I like the idea of picking your shooters based on their game performance better than a pre-made list. 2. I liked the idea of 4v4 followed by 3v3 or whatever it was. 3v3 definitely sounds enticing though. 3. IMO the ice is only the "same" for both teams if they're shooting on the same net. Which wouldn't really be a major problem to do that, but it's not how they do it currently. But hypothetically, if one team has a giant rut in the middle of the ice while the other team doesn't... I'm just saying, I don't mind the Zamboni. I think it's better that way. 4. I think if you lose in regulation or OT you should get nothing. Shootout is so much of a toss up that I think you should get the loser point, OR, maybe the winner only gets one point and loser gets none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 At the end of OT the coaches come to center ice and do 3 out of 5 Rock Paper Scissors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Else? Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I hate the shootout. Three on Three is also a gimmick. I don't have any answers, but somebody has too come up with something. I want a winner and loser at the end, so if I have to stomach a shootout or another gimmick so be it. As for no loser points, that makes the NHL a win vs. loss league like the rest of them. Although it makes sense, it disregards the whole point system the NHL has held onto forever. If all games are three point games (3 for reg. win 2 pts for OT win with 1 loser pt.) , the only thing that really changes are the relevancy of previous point records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Just get rid of them and let the game end in a tie if it has to. Very old school, but I agree with you ... no O/T and no shootout. It worked fine in the past. Two points for a win and one point for a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Very old school, but I agree with you ... no O/T and no shootout. It worked fine in the past. Two points for a win and one point for a tie. You would definitely still have an OT period, even if you did away with the shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 You would definitely still have an OT period, even if you did away with the shootout. Which is how college hockey operates. 5 minute OT, no shootout. It encourages you to play for a winning result. I also like the 3-2-1 scoring style. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, 1 point for an OT loss. Reward winning in regulation, not winning in OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 You would definitely still have an OT period, even if you did away with the shootout. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I can't believe anyone enjoyed the previous system of a loss in overtime meant no points for the loser. Teams always played super conservative defensive shell hockey and it was terrible to watch. I do like the idea of 3 points per game though, it would clear up the problem of manufacturing extra points. 3 for Regulation win, 2 for OT/shootout win, 1 for OT/shootout loss, zero for regulation win. Also gives teams something to play for in the last few minutes of regulation in a tie game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 i think most everything could be fixed if they went to the 3-2-1 system - 3 pts for reg win, 2 pts for ot/so win, 1 pt for ot/so loss no more safe playing late in the third. teams chasing a playoff spot would go all out to get that extra two points. playoff bound teams also would be incented to play harder to prevent opponents from getting a big jump on a better seed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabres Fan in NS Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Which is how college hockey operates. 5 minute OT, no shootout. It encourages you to play for a winning result. I also like the 3-2-1 scoring style. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, 1 point for an OT loss. Reward winning in regulation, not winning in OT. What happens if at the end of OT there is no winner? Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 What happens if at the end of OT there is no winner? Did I miss something? Ah, sorry. In college hockey it ends in a tie. Each team gets 1 point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Just get rid of them and let the game end in a tie if it has to. I'm with you on this. The shame of tying should be enough to motivate teams to try and win the game. This whole OT/shootout thing makes the last minutes of regulation pointless. Play for the win or don't. It's up to them. Very old school, but I agree with you ... no O/T and no shootout. It worked fine in the past. Two points for a win and one point for a tie. Ugh. I grew up with the tie. I detested it then and I detest the idea of it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Ugh. I grew up with the tie. I detested it then and I detest the idea of it now. But the same reason you detest the tie is the reason we don't like the current format. Neither encourages a competitive end to the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oakstream Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I love the shootout! As tough as last nights lost were, I rather have that than to let it end in a tie. Tie is the worst concept in sports IMO. Shootouts are exiting.Just watch a game of soccer if you enjoy ties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Keep everything the same, just get rid of the loser point. That is the only issue I have, Play the 5 minutes, go to a shootout and give the winner two points. Loser gets nothing, as it should be. This isn't NASCAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Only 8 teams in the league are under .500 right now, because of point inflation from the loser point? F that nonsensical mess. Do you give a full two points to a team just because they're the better team in 5 minutes of 4-on-4 or shootout? F that gimmicky ######. There's a reason the reasons the playoffs are 5-on-5. Determine the outcome of a game by continuing to play the same game game: 5-on-5 overtime. If you don't want a regular season Nashville-Columbus game going into 3OT, I get it. Go back to a 5 or 10 minute OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.