109 replies to this topic

[wingfanatic4alltime]

Although i am a fan of the Shootouts i also was watching the Leafs Caps game on CBC and Jim Hughson and the other analyst were talking about this minor league team that after the first overtime they play a second overtime which becomes a 3 on 3. To me that doesnt sound like a bad idea it will eliminate the shootouts and more likely may be more exciting then the shootouts. Do you guys agree?

[SouthernWingsFan]

Although i am a fan of the Shootouts i also was watching the Leafs Caps game on CBC and Jim Hughson and the other analyst were talking about this minor league team that after the first overtime they play a second overtime which becomes a 3 on 3. To me that doesnt sound like a bad idea it will eliminate the shootouts and more likely may be more exciting then the shootouts. Do you guys agree?

OT and shootouts are fine the way they are, although I wouldn't mind best-of-5 instead of just best-of-3. It's the points/standings for losing in OT or shootout that's the problem and silly.

[Kwame_Kilpatrick]

i dont like shooutouts i dont think its fair to lose a team game on basically a crap shoot or w.e they call it, it should just end in a draw if they tie after 5 minutes, or at least they should keep playing

[Z and D for the C]

I like the shoot out, but I think it should be 2 points for a win and 0 points for a loss, regardless of when it happens.

[Shady Ultima]

It turns the game into surviving 60 minutes for 1 point, then buying the second.

The thing is... that was what the shoot out was added to erase.

It used to be teams would defend until OT, and just take the point.
Now they defend until the shoot out and get the point.

I like 3 for regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for SO win, 0 for ANY loss.

[haroldsnepsts]

It's basically an all-star skill event that should in no way decide the outcome of a game. And because the league knows it's not a legit way to decide a game, they award the loser point.

I can't remember the stat, but this season a lot of games are going to a shootout. One of the goals was to make overtime actually relevant so teams would try and decide the game there. It's apparently not happening.

I say go to 10 minutes 4 on 4 overtime, no shootout. 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and zero for losing. no pro sport should ever award points for losing.

[StormJH1]

The thing is... that was what the shoot out was added to erase.

It used to be teams would defend until OT, and just take the point.
Now they defend until the shoot out and get the point.

I like 3 for regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for SO win, 0 for ANY loss.

Yeah, but it's even more arbitrary for that. They only need to defend until OT starts to get the point. I thought 4 on 4 was great before they had shootouts...they should've made it longer or even looked at 3 on 3. People may laugh at that idea, but how is playing 3 on 3 hockey LESS representative of the actual sport than a shootout?

[ManLuv4Clears]

It's basically an all-star skill event that should in no way decide the outcome of a game. And because the league knows it's not a legit way to decide a game, they award the loser point.

I can't remember the stat, but this season a lot of games are going to a shootout. One of the goals was to make overtime actually relevant so teams would try and decide the game there. It's apparently not happening.

I say go to 10 minutes 4 on 4 overtime, no shootout. 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and zero for losing. no pro sport should ever award points for losing.

Couldn't agree with this post more.

[Doc Holliday]

It's basically an all-star skill event that should in no way decide the outcome of a game. And because the league knows it's not a legit way to decide a game, they award the loser point.

I can't remember the stat, but this season a lot of games are going to a shootout. One of the goals was to make overtime actually relevant so teams would try and decide the game there. It's apparently not happening.

I say go to 10 minutes 4 on 4 overtime, no shootout. 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and zero for losing. no pro sport should ever award points for losing.

And it will turn overtime into a boring event because teams will not want to take any chances and lose that extra point.

Not good.

[haroldsnepsts]

And it will turn overtime into a boring event because teams will not want to take any chances and lose that extra point.

Not good.

Except that's what's happening right now.

They've never given it a chance with 4 on 4 under the new rules, and for 10 minutes. I thought about no points for ties but that wouldn't be fair and would probably wreak too much havoc with the standings.

Obviously ties aren't the most exciting outcome, but it would preserve the integrity of the game and keep from inflating standings from the loser point.

[edicius]

I'm almost positive I read somewhere recently that Pittsburgh is 8-0 in shootouts this season. Lends a little credence to my theory that they play for the shootout.

[Finnish Wing]

I think the best way would be "endless" overtime until goal or overtime periods (like 10min or something) which end in the goal.

The biggest reason why shootout suck, is that too often you see teams playing great in the OT and you just see that if that continues they're gonna win it, but then the time runs out and the other team takes the victory in a shootout. Something just isn't right when that happens. The one team plays better hockey, but the other can still win it in this shootout gambling.

[CaliWingsNut]

bump.

[Electrophile]

I cannot express clearly enough just how much I loathe shootouts and our participation in them.

[CaliWingsNut]

New idea...
Best of 5 - 5v5, no goalies, skate from bluelines for the puck resting @ center faceoff

[Hank Dats 'N Homer]

New idea...
Best of 5 - 5v5, no goalies, skate from bluelines for the puck resting @ center faceoff

Welcome to Thunderdomeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

haha i think that might be to aggressive and cause to many injuries. why not just see how 4 0n 4 Ot works until we have a winner? opens the ice up for skaters, but wont come down to a skills competition, which i find dumb. I get the point of a shootout in that its suppose to be exciting but it just sucks to see teams that fights and scratches their way to a tie to get beat because they dont have players that focus on a 1 on 1 skill competition basis. I just dont see how that is a testiment of how a TEAM game should be determined.

Would i have a different opinion if the wings had a better Shootout record? Maybe. But i can definetly see both sides at this point.

[FunkedUp]

The Wings are going miss the playoffs by 1 point, due to a shootout loss late in the season.

Shootouts are bad for the game. They need to be eliminated. At the very the least they should have a 10 min OT. Ideally, you would just play until someone wins. 5 on 5. No ties. No shootout. 2 points for the win, and 0 for the loss.

People might say that it is a problem because this could cause double OT games or something. Tough. They are pro-athletes. Do you want to win the game or not? Do you want 2 points or not?

Eliminate the shootout. Eliminate the 3 point system. Eliminate Ties. Restore the game of hockey.

[Howard He Do It?!]

We'd love the SO if the Wings didn't constantly suck in them.

[CaliWingsNut]

We'd love the SO if the Wings didn't constantly suck in them.

You obviously didn't read the thread.

Shootouts are bad for hockey, good for highlight reels that the NHL doesn't get money for.

[FinWing]

How many freaking shootouts are we going to lose? Our record is so miserable it must be some kind of a record.