This makes me faintly ill

[toby91_ca 620]

watching van-dal overtime marathon, all i could think about was 'man, this game is really boring and im already focusing all my energy to stay awake, i don't care how it ends, just end it now!'

I think part of the problem is that goalies are getting bigger, faster and studied better. So maybe Shanny should think about tweaking other rules first then tool around with overtime format. what next? rock paper scissors?

I have the complete opposite opinion. I love playoff overtime. I suffer from a bit of letdown when someone actually scores, because I really want to keep watching, don't want it to end.

[gowingsgo 3]

If it aint broke dont fix it

[maltbymaniac 13]

im all for 4 on 4 hockey ,it just gets to boring watching nothing happen for 3 extra periods so isay bring on the 4 on 4 but no shootouts in the playoffs.

[Kp-Wings 3]

I think Shanahan is becoming senile in his older age. What a stupid idea.

I love that quote about Yashin winning in a shootout on TSN. If theres a player in the NHL that is easy enough to make any joke about, it's Alexei Yashin.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

I have the complete opposite opinion. I love playoff overtime. I suffer from a bit of letdown when someone actually scores, because I really want to keep watching, don't want it to end.

This is as close to the truth as any one human being will ever come. Thank you for saying this toby, it is not possible to articulate it any better than that.

[maltbymaniac 13]

i would also like to how some of you guys dont think 4 on 4 wouldnt make for better playoff hockey?

[Offsides 21]

I have the complete opposite opinion. I love playoff overtime. I suffer from a bit of letdown when someone actually scores, because I really want to keep watching, don't want it to end.

I agree. Playoff OT is one of the best things in the world! Even better if you are lucky enough to go to a game that goes into multiple OT's! However, I understand Shanny's side because it must be really hard to play multiple OT's, plus I think a really long one will tire out the teams for a couple of rounds and debilitate their chances.

I don't think it will ever happen, though. No one will want to decide a playoff game that way. I just don't think that Shanny's opinion is stupid though because I can see it from his perspective.

[Kp-Wings 3]

i would also like to how some of you guys dont think 4 on 4 wouldnt make for better playoff hockey?

Because Mark Mowers said he doesn't like it. And because he is a future lock for the HOF, his opinion is more important then everyone else.

[maltbymaniac 13]

Because Mark Mowers said he doesn't like it. And because he is a future lock for the HOF, his opinion is more important then everyone else.

well why didnt you say that in the first place, instead of leaving me in the dark

[JaketheShark 0]

Famous last words! Here was my quote from yesteryear: "The day cigarettes reach a dollar a pack is the day I quit smoking."

OK, in China they're still less than a dollar a pack, so I guess I bought myself some time.

But no matter what rule they come up with, I'd no more give up hockey than than I'd give up * cough cough * anything else I valued.

Yeah, good thinking man. Giving up your heart and lungs is much better than giving up something way more important, like cigarettes.

[asmith18 3]

Regular season makes sense to have OT, then a shootout, but playoffs, you play sudden death even if there are a lot of OT, like the Dallas/Vancouver game.

Shanny is getting older and prolly can't take the many OT anymore and the fact Rangers had to go into OT could be why he opened his mouth and gonna try to push it.

[motorcitykid 42]

..the question was more rhetorical than anything.

I know.

With various other issues like hits to the head and all that, I cannot understand why the offices in NY are constantly wasting energy messing with the games' roots.

Edited April 30, 2007 by motorcitykid

[maltbymaniac 13]

like in every other sport time changes and so does the game

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

i would also like to how some of you guys dont think 4 on 4 wouldnt make for better playoff hockey?

A number of reasons. For starters, I don't have anything against 4-on-4 hockey, it's pretty OK, but:

1.) I would be loathe to watch 4-on-4 hockey for twenty minutes or more (assuming continuous scoreless play). It's OK in bits, great change of pace, but in whole it's not better than 5-on-5 hockey. There's way less grinding and cycling, it's all about rushes and odd-man situations, which are fun, but are both present in regular play and better in moderation.

2.) Why are we trying to end the game so quickly? I know why the players might, the sponsors might, but whatever: we're the fans, we're what matter. So between you and me, why should we want anything less than the occasional 6 or 7 period game?

3.) Beyond those things, I'm opposed to ending the game in extra sessions differently than how it was played through regulation. The team that's best at hockey should win, not whatever silly thing they decide to put in to end the game in a hurry.

[maltbymaniac 13]

A number of reasons. For starters, I don't have anything against 4-on-4 hockey, it's pretty OK, but:

1.) I would be loathe to watch 4-on-4 hockey for twenty minutes or more (assuming continuous scoreless play). It's OK in bits, great change of pace, but in whole it's not better than 5-on-5 hockey. There's way less grinding and cycling, it's all about rushes and odd-man situations, which are fun, but are both present in regular play and better in moderation.

2.) Why are we trying to end the game so quickly? I know why the players might, the sponsors might, but whatever: we're the fans, we're what matter. So between you and me, why should we want anything less than the occasional 6 or 7 period game?

3.) Beyond those things, I'm opposed to ending the game in extra sessions differently than how it was played through regulation. The team that's best at hockey should win, not whatever silly thing they decide to put in to end the game in a hurry.

well said and great points

[Jwo 7]

can any of you actually see just a little further than your own bellybuttons? multiple overtimes are a CATASTROPHE.

-no TV timeouts means angry sponsors AND even more tired players.

-5,6,7,8 period games are TORTURE for players and staff. the more the games go, the more tired everyone becomes; quality of play just goes down.

-endless games actually diminish your performance for the following games.

-problem is not gonna solve itself. goalies are way too good and still way too big (nets too small), defensive play is easier than ever.

-4 on 4 is awesome and provides exciting play/scoring chances without removing the "team" element from the sport. I would play ANY OT 4 on 4.

It IS broken. DO fix it.

There is a reason why the Stanley Cup is hard to win.

[BuckeyeWingsfan80 209]

f*** sponsors. I mean seriously, who cares about those guys? For the players - that's kind of the point. Game ends eventually cause everyone is so dog-tired.

Somehow I don't think that's the best way of looking at things, especially considering what this league is struggling to get on TV anyway.....

[sergei_is_still_a_wing 1]

as someone far more intelligent than i already stated,

the rangers game went into double OT last night and the rangers won.

now i pose this question to you: DO YOU THINK THE RANGERS CAN STICK WITH THE SABRES FOR AN ENTIRE PERIOD OF 4 ON 4 HOCKEY???

IMO hell no. 4 on 4 means speed equals goals. the sabres would have so many 3 on 2s and 2 on 1s shannys head would spin. that game would have been over in 4-5 shifts.

of course im being a bit of a homer and exagerating, but come on. the faster team has a distinct advantage 4 on 4.

keep things the way they are. i love the shootouts now, but i still wish i never got to see one in the NHL. (does that make any sense??? i dont think it belongs in the game, but to attract fans is exciting ect. ect.)

[Turretin 0]

Wasn't hockey played 6 on 6 at one point?

Just a thought...

[Grypho 195]

Yeah, good thinking man. Giving up your heart and lungs is much better than giving up something way more important, like cigarettes.

Jake, I know you're well-intending, but it's that general kind of thinking that I do not miss about home. I have two vices - hockey and smoking. Neither are up for debate. Huntington's Disease will kill me in a cruel way long before smoking ever could. What kind of a world do we live in where people are infected with the habitual desire to school others on how best to live their lives. You're going to die just as surely as I am, so live free and die on your own terms, as will I.

As for 4 on 4, I could live with it because I happen to love 4 on 4 anyway when it happens in the regular season. In fact, I get excited when a player from each team is sitting in the box, and the ice opens up.

If the NHL had 4 on 4 play from its inception, I personally think it would have made for a much more exciting, far more high scoring game, IMO. Not that I don't love it as-is, mind, but I'm not a stickler for tradition. The Halifax rules of yesteryear had two thirty minute periods, with a ten minute break in between. Half time? In Hockey? And refs were called goal umpires! So many things have changed about the game over the years anyway, so I don't have a problem with more change. It's the thought of a shootout that I can't stomach. That's like saying, "Fine, you couldn't end it with regular play, so we'll decide it with a series of penalty shots." If you're going to do that, at least make it one-on-one play, with goalies in net on both sides. And if one-on-one, four-on-four would do just as splendidly.

[Wings_Toledo 233]

Ehh Shanny's just getting old and doesn't want to play more periods than he has to.

[Firehawk 305]

I don't want them ever to take 5 on 5 out of playoff overtime hockey. It's sudden death damnit!

I'd also like to possibly see continuous OT in regulartion maybe after the trade deadline so that teams aren't screwed out of a playoff spot due to a shootout (like this year).

[Yemack 1]

I have the complete opposite opinion. I love playoff overtime. I suffer from a bit of letdown when someone actually scores, because I really want to keep watching, don't want it to end.

I guess you are right. If it was Wings playing then I would be really pissed if it ends in 4 vs 4 or shootout. But I was just watching the game with my buddies who were Canucks fan and we had friendly wager on who would come out top from that game (I lost obviously)

Anyway I see very logical reasons behind changing playoff format. If they do change it though IMHO it will really go against what playoff hockey was for last century. Van - Dal game was particulary boring because both played very conservative defensive style and the goalies were superb. However, at the same token, I will never forget those exciting overtime game we played against Avalanche and others in playoffs. (what comes to my mind right now is olaussson firing slapper past Roy in 2002)

Yes the quality of entertainment goes down, plus lingering effects and sponsor concerns as well. But going for 4 vs 4 in playoffs.... I don't know, it seems TOO cookie cutter stuff to me.

[stevie for president 42]

That's not fair to a team with more depth. If you can roll 4 lines for 7 periods, you have a huge advantage over a team with 3 lines. Making it 2 forwards instead of 3 adds another line. and no one in their right mind will go with 5 lines in a 2 on 2 game because then your best players see much less ice time. so a 4 on 4 OT will hurt a team that made it on depth and help a team that made it with top heavy scoring.

Also, you can say whatever you want about multiple OT games, but you know the most exciting game you have watched in the last decade was the 3OT game in the cup finals in 02. And about that, please tell me how one of the oldest teams in the NHL goes through a marathon series with colorado, then loses game 1 in OT and then goes to a 3OT game in game 3, and showed no signs of slowing down. and Yzerman was on one leg, and the guy who scored 6 periods into the game was the oldest guy in the NHL.

And about sponsors. How hard is it to say "This overtime is brought to you by Dodge" or whatever. Imagine 60 extra minutes of play with a little dodge symbol by the scorebox, or line nowadays, and every 5 whistles having dock emerick plugging dodge?

[Guest Crymson]

can any of you actually see just a little further than your own bellybuttons? multiple overtimes are a CATASTROPHE.

-no TV timeouts means angry sponsors AND even more tired players.

-5,6,7,8 period games are TORTURE for players and staff. the more the games go, the more tired everyone becomes; quality of play just goes down.

-endless games actually diminish your performance for the following games.

-problem is not gonna solve itself. goalies are way too good and still way too big (nets too small), defensive play is easier than ever.

-4 on 4 is awesome and provides exciting play/scoring chances without removing the "team" element from the sport. I would play ANY OT 4 on 4.

It IS broken. DO fix it.

These players are paid absolutely exorbitant amounts of money to play this game. Were they paid minimum wage to play hockey then I'd look at giving them a break. However, probably most of them make more in a week than a minimum wage worker makes in a year. As such, they really have the obligation to give the fans what they want.

Broken? An NHL poll disagrees with you; fans voted massively in favor of keeping the present playoff overtime format, as opposed to 4v4 or shootout. IMO, overtime is one of the things that makes the playoffs special, and I wouldn't change it for the world. Evidently many of hockey's diehard fans agree.. I'd call the present format pretty damned unbroken, possibly as unbroken as it could be.