Guest CaliWingsNut Report post Posted November 16, 2009 I read an article on Puck Daddy today (Link) about the suggestion by Atlanta to change shootouts (which is absolutely ridiculous, but makes sense when your team only has one player who can shoot ) . It basically did nothing but remind me of the fact that I hate shootouts. Shootouts are an unfair means of ending a fair and close game. It promotes overpayment for a few star players rather than a balanced roster. In my opinion some teams use it to their advantage and try to get ties purposely against tough opponents. The NHL doesn't have the star power to support it either, especially since they focus their ads on a small handful of the whole. 1 Ram reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest E_S_A_D Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Agree. Shootouts were made for the new generation hockey fan. It's not hockey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Functionally its absolutely terrible, but its entertainment value is close to unbeatable. 1 Ram reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheWestWing 71 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Functionally its absolutely terrible, but its entertainment value is close to unbeatable. Nope. A penalty shot is entertainment - the shootout is the Amerikan 'philosophy' that 'somebody must win'..... 1 Ram reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Nope. A penalty shot is entertainment - the shootout is the Amerikan 'philosophy' that 'somebody must win'..... Are you saying that when everyone is the building is standing from their seats and cheering their heads off during every single shootout attempt and hanging on who gets the extra point the crowd isn't entertained? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gordie Howe hat trick 110 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Three point games are a load of crap, we need to go back to there being ties again. 1 zata40 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobRouse03 31 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 I always thought the shootout was a joke. I know there are fans that like it, but I am not one of them. I have Center Ice and whenever a game goes to shootout I turn it off. I would just as much like to see a two man potato sack race to determine which team gets the extra point. Actually I always thought it would be more entertaining for the home team to determine which NHL skills event to use to determine the winner. Talk about home ice advantage...your loaded with guys with hard shots so you select the hardest shooter comp. You have fast skaters so you select some guys to do laps and time them. Hey its just as silly and arbitrary as the shootout so why not? I would love to have a team full of defensemen that can skate around cones to get an extra point in the standings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lovin Jiri Fischer 147 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Shootouts are great for entertainment. Who doesn't like to see sick moves? However, sports should not be about entertainment. Sports should be about passion for the game. Do any of us consider pro wrestling a sport? A shootout competition during the All Star Weekend is a good idea because it's fun to see. But I don't like the idea of a team winning a hockey game in a way that didn't even involve playing hockey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Shootouts are great for entertainment. Who doesn't like to see sick moves? However, sports should not be about entertainment. ... Heh, that sounds funny considering that professional sports exist solely because of their entertainment value. But I agree, it's a dumb way to settle a game, especially with the practically pointless 5 minute OT preceding it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cjm502 165 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 I say we stick to endless overtime. Playoff hockey baby! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
royedwards 0 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Wow, I thought I was the only one who hated the shootout! It would make more sense to decide the game with a fight between the goons from each team. Fans would really get into that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HOCKEY MATTERS 167 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 I hated the shootout at first, but it can be very exciting (or depressing, depending on how the Wings do). I don't really care if they keep it. There are many more things that have watered the game down more than the shootout, imho. The point that some teams will merely play keep-away in overtime just to get to the SO stinks. I think a win should be 1 point...anything else is 0 points. That'll make em play like it matters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 (edited) I personally hate the shootout, but if I were in charge of hockey I would keep them -- they definitely add entertainment value and keep fans in the stands. Edited November 16, 2009 by egroen 1 T-Ruff reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VM1138 1,921 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 Three point games are a load of crap, we need to go back to there being ties again. No, no no, ties are the worst. Shootouts are horrible ways to end games, I agree, but ties were even worse. I think the points system should be simplified to no points for an OT loss. You either win or you lose. 2 T-Ruff and T.Low reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevkrause 1,247 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 I personally hate the shootout, but if I were in charge of hockey I would keep them -- they definitely add entertainment value and keep fans in the stands. it makes perfect sense for the regular season, ties are stupid and serve no purpose... HOWEVER I HATE a team game being decided by individuals and I think there should be more incentive to winning the game the way it is suppose to be played... with that said, I think ALL games should be worth 3 pts and I think overtime needs to be tweaked.... If a tie after regulation - 4 on 4 for 5 minutes. If a tie after the first OT - 3 on 3 for another 5 minutes. If there is STILL a tie... then a SO - FOR REG SEASON ONLY - Playoffs - play until someone wins Win in regulation or OT - 3pts Win in SO - 2 pts Loss in SO - 1 pt grand total of 3 pts for every game, if you don't win it in reg or OT, you actually lose a pt you could have won in OT - more incentive to win in reg or OT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted November 16, 2009 I like the shootout rule. The way I see it is if you don't want to lose a point to a skill competition, bring your skill to the 65 minutes preceding the shootout. 1 T.Low reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blankrap 9 Report post Posted November 17, 2009 In my opinion some teams use it to their advantage and try to get ties purposely against tough opponents. The NHL doesn't have the star power to support it either, especially since they focus their ads on a small handful of the whole. Name a team that has not tried to score the game winning goal in order to get it to the shootout? That logic is just silly. 1 T.Low reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ManLuv4Clears 7 Report post Posted November 17, 2009 Throw me into the hate shoot out crowd. I'll take ties all day long over that side show. 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. Very simple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Donaldjr2448 43 Report post Posted November 17, 2009 it makes perfect sense for the regular season, ties are stupid and serve no purpose... HOWEVER I HATE a team game being decided by individuals and I think there should be more incentive to winning the game the way it is suppose to be played... with that said, I think ALL games should be worth 3 pts and I think overtime needs to be tweaked.... If a tie after regulation - 4 on 4 for 5 minutes. If a tie after the first OT - 3 on 3 for another 5 minutes.If there is STILL a tie... then a SO - FOR REG SEASON ONLY - Playoffs - play until someone wins Win in regulation or OT - 3pts Win in SO - 2 pts Loss in SO - 1 pt grand total of 3 pts for every game, if you don't win it in reg or OT, you actually lose a pt you could have won in OT - more incentive to win in reg or OT I agree with the OT like that! Forget the shootout! If it is still tied, then I could live with a tie! The shootout is pointless because a team could make or not make the playoffs based on something that has nothing to do with the playoffs! I understand why the NHL brought the shootouts to the games because of the strike season. But the really need to reconsider the shootouts. Teams are being left out of the playoffs because they are not a good shootout team! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyphoenix 153 Report post Posted November 17, 2009 I say if a game ends in a tie, Pittsburgh gets another point. Oh wait, I'm not Bettman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest E_S_A_D Report post Posted November 17, 2009 Shootouts are to hockey, as steroids are to wrestling. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hooon 1,089 Report post Posted November 17, 2009 Wait... to the OP Are you suggesting that teams actually TRY to be tied at the end of the game because they have good shootout shooters?? So teams will purposely try NOT to win the game in regulation or overtime, due to the chance that they are better in the shootout one night? I'd like a clearer explanation of this theory please.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blankrap 9 Report post Posted November 17, 2009 Wait... to the OP Are you suggesting that teams actually TRY to be tied at the end of the game because they have good shootout shooters?? So teams will purposely try NOT to win the game in regulation or overtime, due to the chance that they are better in the shootout one night? I'd like a clearer explanation of this theory please.... I asked for the same thing... what a silly theory. Absolutely absurd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T-Ruff 47 Report post Posted November 17, 2009 Shootouts are the single greatest accomplishment of the NHL lockout... A game ending in a tie, no matter how good/entertaining it was, always left a bit of a sour taste. I'm all for trying to improve and modify the points and/or overtime methods, but we can't go back to having ties. And in the end shootouts will be necessary because continuous OT during the season just can't be done because of TV schedules and such. Perhaps 3 on 3 continous OT would end games faster (after x amount of 4 on 4) but that would have to be experimented with. One thing they need to do is increase the number of shooters to 5. Where did they get 3 from? Soccer does 5, International hockey does 5, AHL does 5... why did the NHL pick 3? I'll never support shootouts in the playoffs however, nothing is better than a marathon playoff OT game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VM1138 1,921 Report post Posted November 17, 2009 (edited) Here's a radical thought: What about a 6 minute OT, with the first 3 minutes a powerplay for the home team and the second half for the away team? EDIT: But you play the whole 6 minutes, so it's like a shootout, but with the whole team in play, more fitting with "team sport." Of course, this would only be in the regular season because it's a bizarre, radical twist. But it might work. Edited November 17, 2009 by VM1138 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites