• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Howard He Do It?!

The 5-year trial is over: Scrub the shootout

Rate this topic

95 posts in this topic

While the shoot outs are pretty exciting I don't think it's the best way to decide a game as others have stated it's a team sport and you aren't displaying team effort by one player facing the goalie. Plus the SO has totally taken away from the novelty of a penalty shot, that used to be so exciting to see someone rewarded a one on one chance at the goalie.

I'd much rather have the games end in a tie if nobody can score during OT. Look for ways to make OT more challenging, like the 3 on 3 OT. Or lengthen it, 5 minutes 4 on 4 then 5 minutes 3 on 3 and if nobody scores it ends in a tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the shootout. I find it entertaining as long as you know we aren't getting into one every other game. This year we haven't had many so I don't think it's an issue.

However I would hate for them to just keep adding on overtimes until someone scores. That will make games way too long and way to brutal. If we get into a triple OT game and the team we face in two days doesn't than we are going to be at a huge disadvantage there. And don't even start to think if it happens on a back to back. Plus I think injuries would go up too just from players being worn out.

Shootouts provide a short and simple way to pick a winner rather than having both teams grind it out until one falters.

Wingzman91 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a sport where the game ends in a tie; soccer.

This is a classic case of the grass is always greener.

You forget that the teams without highly skilled finishers still tied very often, like the salary cap, this is a way for teams to even the playing ground with the big spenders.

The shootout is alot more fun then going back to your car to drive home, (hours in some cases) wondering why you came out to a game that ended in a tie.

So the league is alot more competitive and the fans are happy, it is a win/win.

I'm glad that the sport allows room to grow and become more modern over the years, imagine the fans that through a hissy fit when their team couldn't sign the best players before the draft regulated how players entered the league.

Lastly, ask Wojtek Wolski if he wants the shootout gone, the man is making 4mill this year and mostly because he is a ace after the OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, for about a hundred years, hockey.

This. The league survived for years without the shoot out deciding games.

I don't know that I go home any more satisfied when my team loses in a manufactured event like the shoot out than I would've had it been a tie.

Actually I do know. I'm much less satisfied. And when the wings win in the shoot out I'm just happy they got the second point. It doesn't feel the same to me as an actual win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I've said before, there's nothing wrong with a tie.

It just means neither team was good enough to win the game in an actual game format. Why give someone an extra point when they didn't earn it in a game situation?

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. The league survived for years without the shoot out deciding games.

I don't know that I go home any more satisfied when my team loses in a manufactured event like the shoot out than I would've had it been a tie.

Actually I do know. I'm much less satisfied. And when the wings win in the shoot out I'm just happy they got the second point. It doesn't feel the same to me as an actual win.

yeah, but they also survived for many years without helmets... doesn't mean it was better that way...

would like to add i am not particularly fond of the shootout, just wasn't a big fan of that reasoning...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another flaw of this system is the OTL = 1 point thing. I'd understand getting a point when you're lose in the shootout, but why the f*** does any team get rewarded for losing in a 4 on 4 regular hockey game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another flaw of this system is the OTL = 1 point thing. I'd understand getting a point when you're lose in the shootout, but why the f*** does any team get rewarded for losing in a 4 on 4 regular hockey game?

Pretty much the only issue that I got with the whole thing. 0 points for a loss at any time, no questions asked.

I wouldn't mind going back to a W-L-T system like before, but there's nothing wrong with the current overtime status in the regular season. I like the shootout, I like the chance for more wide open hockey for a few minutes if a game is still tied. Only thing I'd consider modifying is 5 shooters for the shootout.

If anybody messes with playoff overtime hockey though, I will be a very angry camper. Nothing compares that playoff sudden death games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideal world: W-L-T, with 5 minute overtime, 4 on 4. No shootout. The NHL would never want to market the game like that though. They feel they need a winner and gimmicks to attract fans. It's not the end of the world though. What I hate most about the shootout is that it has completely lost its novelty. I remember waiting every four years for the Olympics and when a shootout happened it was just so horrifying, "how could they leave the game up to a shootout??" type of thing.

I remember crappying myself watching this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb9-hbwmb0Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, you North Americans think thats bad, you should try getting your head round cricket - a game that can last 5 days and still end in a draw :) And you can have a 5 or 6 game series that also ends in a draw. And yet both sets of players and both sets of fans are happy with that :)

The SO is a by-product of the North American mentality which is unable/unwilling to accept a game without a winner. It also produces drama and allows the really high end players to showcase their talents, and gives the NHL a slightly better chance of making Sportscentre instead of yet another buzzer-beater from mid-court in the Nebraska Valley State vs Rhode Island Tech ballgame.

The loser point has 2 benefits - it artificially compresses the standings which keeps Bettman and the Networks happy, as well as prolonging the regular season of teams just outside the playofffs. It also produces a more exciting OT as both teams go for it. I love 4on4 OT, its like 80s hockey as both teams chase the W, and I'd be very happy to see it go to 10 minutes before the SO.

dobbles likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Brian Burke saying that the shootout is the equivalent to quarterbacks doing target practice with tires, implying that it's too easy and such. Off the top of my head I can't really name that many players who hover around 50% or better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was another of example of Bettman's "labour negotiating skills", as it was forced on the players for the season following the lockout. I wonder if this issue was put to a vote of the membership if it would have passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a OTL loss be .5 pts and 1 pt for the win no matter what after regulation ends... I don't mind the shootout, just the affect it has on the standings. I don't like the idea of 3 pts or whatever. It just doesn't seem legit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mother likes shootouts.

I'm not sure we're related.

Kidding. We're related. She's a Wings fan and all.

I don't mind them except for the way they skew the points with some games being worth 3 points. I'd rather they had overtime for a bit longer (say 5 min of 5 on 5 followed by 5 minutes of 4 on 4) and then went to a shootout.

Either:

2 for the winner and 0 for the loser regardless of if it is regulation, OT, or shootout,

OR

2 for the winner and 0 for the loser if it is regulation or OT, and 1.5 for the winner and .5 for the loser of a shootout,

OR

after OT, give each team 1 point, call it a tie, and have the shootout be basically just for fun and bragging rights and to settle bets on who buys beer for the next game.

Because beer for the next game is important.

EDIT for clarity.

Edited by 55fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, the NHL adopted the loser point a few years before they started using the shootout. They switched to 4 on 4 OT and the loser point.

So even if that blessed day came that they got rid of the shootout (which won't happen), that doesn't necessarily mean the loser point goes away with it. I can only assume many owners love the loser point because they inflated standings keep more teams in the playoff hunt deeper into the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still like the shootout but I see why people do not. I think 4 on 4 for 5 min then maybe 3 on 3 for 5 then shootout

Edited by Krayzie_Bone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0