The 5-year trial is over: Scrub the shootout

[stevkrause 1,247]

While I do agree that hockey is a team game, I have a hard time rewarding points to a team that didn't win regardless of how they lost. It's basically rewarding failure.

they already do that... at least this way has merit, as you're getting the pt for taking it to a tie through TEAM play (remember, under a tie format, both teams split the pts)- This way, the SO is just there for people to walk away with a winner and a loser and basically the teams that "wins" in the SO gives the pt away for not winning it in OT....

[stevkrause 1,247]

1 point for a win, zero for a loss, overtime or otherwise. Losing is losing and derserves no reward.

If tied after 3 periods, play an infinate 4th period (5 on 5, just like, you know, ice hockey), next score wins. No gimmicks, no ties.

god damn a lot of people are ignorant... THIS. IS. NOT. GOOD. MARKETING.

It's not going to be a DRASTIC overhaul... be reasonable... at least some of us are trying to offer solutions we think would work and could still appease the marketing aspect of the SO...

face facts - it's not going away.

Edited February 1, 2010 by stevkrause

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

they already do that... at least this way has merit, as you're getting the pt for taking it to a tie through TEAM play (remember, under a tie format, both teams split the pts)- This way, the SO is just there for people to walk away with a winner and a loser and basically the teams that "wins" in the SO gives the pt away for not winning it in OT....

I know they already do that and I hate it. Splitting points for a tie makes sense because through team play both teams reached a stalemate. The SO is a slap in the face to team play and should not even exist. Despite that, the awarding of points to the losing team shouldn't occur regardless of how the game was lost. Awarding 1 point for a SO win punishes the winning team for not winning earlier and awarding no points to the loser punishes them for losing.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

While I do agree that hockey is a team game, I have a hard time rewarding points to a team that didn't win regardless of how they lost. It's basically rewarding failure.

Way I see it games that go to a shootout are a tie anyways. You've played 65 minutes of hockey and there's no winner, you each get a point. Only difference now is they do some other silly thing afterwards and someone does get an extra point.

[egroen 384]

1 point for a win, zero for a loss, overtime or otherwise. Losing is losing and derserves no reward.

If tied after 3 periods, play an infinate 4th period (5 on 5, just like, you know, ice hockey), next score wins. No gimmicks, no ties.

Hockey games can and have gone on forever... scheduling with networks would never allow for that.

I love the idea of more OT, but it is utterly exhausing for the players... especially 4 on 4 or even 3 on 3, and plus teams shorten their bench in OT.

[Opie 308]

this is marketing stupidity.

WHY?

The shootout is played out, points for a loss, what is this Rec League basketball, does everyone get a trophy at the end of the season.

I live in a pretty decent hockey community, and I ask people I see in jerseys at bars, Resturaunts, Monarch's games, just about anytime I see someone in a hockey Jersey what they think of the game and ways to improve it, do you have any idea the number of people behind getting rid of the shootout?

Almost as many as would support a second winter classic, by that I mean a lot!

About 80% of the people I talk to hate the idea of a shootout, and I am talking new fans old fans.

The only fans that I see consistently liking the shoot out is young kids. (Nothing meant towards you Stev, at all please don't take it that way, just what I see here in NH and New England).

Why is my proposal marketing nightmare.

Open ice with fewer players on it means more high speed dekes and moves, as opposed to watching Crosby, Malkin, Datsyuk, and Williams all coast towards the net, deke a few times and go backhand.

It also incorporates what is great in the game with the high speed dekes and moves, things like hits, crazy passes, you know the things that were a part of the game more than 5 years ago and were able to establish quite the fan base!

You really think an activity that happens, 15-20 times a season for an 82 game season, being removed from the game entirely is a problem. The shootout doesn't happen every game, why would pulling it out of the 20% it happens in be marketing stupidity.

How do they go about marketing the shootout so well to begin with?

Marketing stupidity, wasn't it you that on another thread (Ken Holland Poll) just minutes ago accused some one of making a statement and then not providing any path of logic to describe their stance?

Edited February 1, 2010 by Opie

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

WHY?

The shootout is played out, points for a loss, what is this Rec League basketball, does everyone get a trophy at the end of the season.

I live in a pretty decent hockey community, and I ask people I see in jerseys at bars all the time what they think of the game and ways to improve it, do you have any idea the number of people behind getting rid of the shootout?

Almost as many as would support a second winter classic, by that I mean a lot!

About 80% of the people I talk to hate the idea of a shootout, and I am talking new fans old fans.

The only fans that I see consistently liking the shoot out is young kids. (Nothing meant towards you Stev, at all please don't take it that way, just what I see here in NH and New England).

Why is my proposal marketing nightmare.

Open ice with fewer players on it means more high speed dekes and moves, as opposed to watching Crosby, Malkin, Datsyuk, and Williams all coast towards the net, deke a few times and go backhand.

It also incorporates what is great in the game with thge high speed dekes and moves, things like hits, crazy passes, you know the things that were a part of the game more than 5 years ago and were able to establish quite the fan base!

You really think an activity that happens, 15-20 times a season for an 82 game season, being removed from the game entirely is a problem. The shootout doesn't happen every game, why would pulling it out of the 20% it happens in be marketing stupidity.

How do they go about marketing the shootout so well to begin with?

Marketing stupidity, wasn't it you that on another thread (Ken Holland Poll) just minutes ago accused some one of making a statement and then not providing any path of logic to describe their stance?

This.

Most NHL marketing is derived from actual game play, not the SO.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Howard He Do It?!

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

god damn a lot of people are ignorant... THIS. IS. NOT. GOOD. MARKETING.

It's not going to be a DRASTIC overhaul... be reasonable... at least some of us are trying to offer solutions we think would work and could still appease the marketing aspect of the SO...

face facts - it's not going away.

Ignorance is not understanding what to correctly market to your target demographic. Using these boards as a control it would appear a lot of people don't give two s***s about the shootout. So it's good marketing pushing down fans throats that you have already won over? I would think this may alienate this group. If you like it, that's fine. Some people probably do, obviously some don't. Don't start throwing ignorance around at people because they could care less about the shootout. Lastly if the NHL was so sweet at marketing, after 5 years it may have a little better tv deal than Versus and Penguins game every Sunday on NBC.

[stevkrause 1,247]

WHY?

The shootout is played out, points for a loss, what is this Rec League basketball, does everyone get a trophy at the end of the season.

I live in a pretty decent hockey community, and I ask people I see in jerseys at bars all the time what they think of the game and ways to improve it, do you have any idea the number of people behind getting rid of the shootout?

Almost as many as would support a second winter classic, by that I mean a lot!

About 80% of the people I talk to hate the idea of a shootout, and I am talking new fans old fans.

The only fans that I see consistently liking the shoot out is young kids. (Nothing meant towards you Stev, at all please don't take it that way, just what I see here in NH and New England).

Why is my proposal marketing nightmare.

Open ice with fewer players on it means more high speed dekes and moves, as opposed to watching Crosby, Malkin, Datsyuk, and Williams all coast towards the net, deke a few times and go backhand.

It also incorporates what is great in the game with thge high speed dekes and moves, things like hits, crazy passes, you know the things that were a part of the game more than 5 years ago and were able to establish quite the fan base!

You really think an activity that happens, 15-20 times a season for an 82 game season, being removed from the game entirely is a problem. The shootout doesn't happen every game, why would pulling it out of the 20% it happens in be marketing stupidity.

How do they go about marketing the shootout so well to begin with?

Marketing stupidity, wasn't it you that on another thread (Ken Holland Poll) just minutes ago accused some one of making a statement and then not providing any path of logic to describe their stance?

First off, I'm almost 30, so I'd hardly call myself a kid... I hate the idea of a team game being decided by individuals, but you cannot go through OT's forever - and the SO is indeed just a gimmicky solution, but what are some of the ONLY highlights you see on Sportscenter? The SO.

This is for the fringe fans, not the die-hards... my point is to keep it, while taking the emphasis off of it, so they still get their little dog and pony show, but the pts are not so heavily relied upon it... need to appease all sides...

As for the other thread, I'm not really sure what you're referring to... I just went back and re-read my posts and I don't see anything like that...

[stevkrause 1,247]

Ignorance is not understanding what to correctly market to your target demographic. Using these boards as a control it would appear a lot of people don't give two s***s about the shootout. So it's good marketing pushing down fans throats that you have already won over? I would think this may alienate this group. If you like it, that's fine. Some people probably do, obviously some don't. Don't start throwing ignorance around at people because they could care less about the shootout. Lastly if the NHL was so sweet at marketing, after 5 years it may have a little better tv deal than Versus and Penguins game every Sunday on NBC.

...I hate the idea of a team game being decided by individuals, but you cannot go through OT's forever - and the SO is indeed just a gimmicky solution, but what are some of the ONLY highlights you see on Sportscenter? The SO.

This is for the fringe fans, not the die-hards... my point is to keep it, while taking the emphasis off of it, so they still get their little dog and pony show, but the pts are not so heavily relied upon it... need to appease all sides...

I feel the need to point out that I don't care for the shootout - but people need to be able to remove their own bias for a situation and evaluate it from both ends of the spectrum.

Edited February 1, 2010 by stevkrause

[Octopus's Garden 147]

I think it should be like this:

3 points for a regulation win

2 for a win in extra time

1 for a loss in extra time

This way its only giving out 3 points every game but a time gets more points for winning

This is the format that the CCHA uses and it's much, much better. Playing the last 10 minutes clinging to a tie so you can get a point is next to meaningless because of the difference between a regulation win and an OT loss. The current system is terrible because it assigns the same amount of points for all wins, and the shootout is far from a "Best team wins" format, so much as it is a "Best players/Luckiest shooters" win format.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Ignorance is not understanding what to correctly market to your target demographic. Using these boards as a control it would appear a lot of people don't give two s***s about the shootout. So it's good marketing pushing down fans throats that you have already won over? I would think this may alienate this group. If you like it, that's fine. Some people probably do, obviously some don't. Don't start throwing ignorance around at people because they could care less about the shootout. Lastly if the NHL was so sweet at marketing, after 5 years it may have a little better tv deal than Versus and Penguins game every Sunday on NBC.

Exactly.

The simple fact is that the NHL doesn't correctly market what they have now, so how would eliminating the shootout affect marketing? Name a cable or satellite provider that doesn't carry ESPN. Now name a cable or satellite provider that doesn't carry Versus. DirecTV, the largest satellite provider, does NOT carry Versus. That's 18 million subscribers. And removing the SO would be a bad marketing decision.

[stevkrause 1,247]

Exactly.

The simple fact is that the NHL doesn't correctly market what they have now, so how would eliminating the shootout affect marketing? Name a cable or satellite provider that doesn't carry ESPN. Now name a cable or satellite provider that doesn't carry Versus. DirecTV, the largest satellite provider, does NOT carry Versus. That's 18 million subscribers. And removing the SO would be a bad marketing decision.

just because they've made many other marketing mistakes, doesn't mean that removing the SO wouldn't be a bad marketing move...

that's very flawed reasoning...

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

First off, I'm almost 30, so I'd hardly call myself a kid... I hate the idea of a team game being decided by individuals, but you cannot go through OT's forever - and the SO is indeed just a gimmicky solution, but what are some of the ONLY highlights you see on Sportscenter? The SO.

This is for the fringe fans, not the die-hards... my point is to keep it, while taking the emphasis off of it, so they still get their little dog and pony show, but the pts are not so heavily relied upon it... need to appease all sides...

As for the other thread, I'm not really sure what you're referring to... I just went back and re-read my posts and I don't see anything like that...

Your Sports Center highlight argument is terrible. Sports Center shows SO highlights because that's how the game ends. It would be stupid if a game did end in a SO and SC didn't show some highlights from it. It would be like showing highlights from the Vikings/Saints game and then not showing what happened in the OT.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

just because they've made many other marketing mistakes, doesn't mean that removing the SO wouldn't be a bad marketing move...

that's very flawed reasoning...

And it's simple conjecture to believe that removing the SO would have adverse affects for the NHL.

[Travis 576]

Exactly.

The simple fact is that the NHL doesn't correctly market what they have now, so how would eliminating the shootout affect marketing? Name a cable or satellite provider that doesn't carry ESPN. Now name a cable or satellite provider that doesn't carry Versus. DirecTV, the largest satellite provider, does NOT carry Versus. That's 18 million subscribers. And removing the SO would be a bad marketing decision.

As a DirecTV customer, I have fought with them so many times about their crappy NHL coverage. I get the MLB, NBA, and NFL Network but not the NHL Network. Or Versus, or TSN, or CBC, or FSN+. I digress, that's another gripe for another thread.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Travis

[Opie 308]

First off, I'm almost 30, so I'd hardly call myself a kid... I hate the idea of a team game being decided by individuals, but you cannot go through OT's forever - and the SO is indeed just a gimmicky solution, but what are some of the ONLY highlights you see on Sportscenter? The SO.

This is for the fringe fans, not the die-hards... my point is to keep it, while taking the emphasis off of it, so they still get their little dog and pony show, but the pts are not so heavily relied upon it... need to appease all sides...

As for the other thread, I'm not really sure what you're referring to... I just went back and re-read my posts and I don't see anything like that...

Try re-reading my post, it is obvious by your first phrase you did not read my post, as I specifically said I didn't call you a kid!

Secondly, you were right that was another poster in the Poll thread I apologize, it was above one of yours and my brain for some reason transposed your avatar there, again I apologize.

Back to the debate:

Fringe fans, so now the league should determine games in ways that are designed to keep fans that may or may not watch ever again, that is what should decide wins or losses, playoff births or going on vacation all summer?

Really, what determines who gets into the playoffs is going to be based off of a gimmick, a skills competition, which is only a part of the game to keep fringe fans, it may be marketing stupidity to get rid of the shootout, but basing standings off of a gimmick meant to keep fringe fans is even worse.

Listen if it were something that had no barring on the outcome, like Ice girls or tee shirt give aways or free NHL CenterIce for the fans great, but we are talking about deciding playoff spots.

Even if it is only the 8th seed, teams have made it to the SCF from the 8th spot. And we are also talking about altering all 8 spots in each conference, 06 -07 Calgary makes the playoffs as the 8th seed, 1 point ahead of the AVS, on the strength of 3 extra losses, were they OT or Shootout, I can not find that info right now and don't care to. The point being that the three extra points they got for losing, for losing mind you, put them in the post season ahead of Colordo.

It happens every year that a team gets less points because some one else lost more in overtime than in regulation.

EDIT: I went off on the point in OT thing, which I don't think you (Stev) pointed out as a bad argument, but I got rolling!

Edited February 1, 2010 by Opie

[StevieY9802 6]

I have no problem with the point for OT but the shootout I'm done with. It's fun to watch no doubt, I think even the most traditional fan agrees with that, whether they will admit it is another thing. Jimmy didn't deserve the "loss" yesterday at all. I always thought just 10 minutes of 4 on 4 would have been ok and that would be it. I always thought 5 minutes was too short but that they shouldn't go for 20. Saying it's boring or whatever to fans... but the NFL teams playing for a field goal is exciting?

Yesterday's game doesn't bother me because it didn't hurt the Wings in the standings to not get the extra point but when you start doing that against teams in the West it sure does. It'll determine playoffs or no playoffs.

As far as sportscenter highlights? who cares? We, the NHL, get dumped into the end of that show anyways. They'll put hightlights of the Nets and Pistons or some guy running the 40 at the combine, on before any NHL highlights.

And as far as networks not wanting games to go on forever, I've seen baseball games go on for 4-5 hours so local networks would deal with it. Would NBC? No but they also turn off game 5 of the ECF's so they obviously don't care about any of it.

Edited February 1, 2010 by StevieY9802

[stevkrause 1,247]

Your Sports Center highlight argument is terrible. Sports Center shows SO highlights because that's how the game ends. It would be stupid if a game did end in a SO and SC didn't show some highlights from it. It would be like showing highlights from the Vikings/Saints game and then not showing what happened in the OT.

Not as the lead-in to it's highlights - As in the "Coming up" and "Top 10" parts... people love the breakaway, the same way they love the long ball, or a 50 yard bomb in the NFL - it's flashy...

Does that make it right, no - but, like I've already said - take it for what it is.

And it's simple conjecture to believe that removing the SO would have adverse affects for the NHL.

Not unless they drastically corrected the OT - otherwise, we're back at square one... you also need to recognize the need for consistency (whether good or bad), when they make drastic rule/gameplay changes year in and year out, that is hard for new/fringe fans to follow and keep up with and can turn even more people off...

Edited February 1, 2010 by stevkrause

[stevkrause 1,247]

Try re-reading my post, it is obvious by your first phrase you did not read my post, as I specifically said I didn't call you a kid!

Secondly, you were right that was another poster in the Poll thread I apologize, it was above one of yours and my brain for some reason transposed your avatar there, again I apologize.

Back to the debate:

Fringe fans, so now the league should determine games in ways that are designed to keep fans that may or may not watch ever again, that is what should decide wins or losses, playoff births or going on vacation all summer?

Really, what determines who gets into the playoffs is going to be based off of a gimmick, a skills competition, which is only a part of the game to keep fringe fans, it may be marketing stupidity to get rid of the shootout, but basing standings off of a gimmick meant to keep fringe fans is even worse.

Listen if it were something that had no barring on the outcome, like Ice girls or tee shirt give aways or free NHL CenterIce for the fans great, but we are talking about deciding playoff spots.

Even if it is only the 8th seed, teams have made it to the SCF from the 8th spot. And we are also talking about altering all 8 spots in each conference, 06 -07 Calgary makes the playoffs as the 8th seed, 1 point ahead of the AVS, on the strength of 3 extra losses, were they OT or Shootout, I can not find that info right now and don't care to. The point being that the three extra points they got for losing, for losing mind you, put them in the post season ahead of Colordo.

It happens every year that a team gets less points because some one else lost more in overtime than in regulation.

EDIT: I went off on the point in OT thing, which I don't think you (Stev) pointed out as a bad argument, but I got rolling!

I think we're basically on the same page, the only thing we seem to be disagreeing with, is the removal of the SO - I think it has it's place... if you go back and see my original suggestion, I want to keep it, but DRASTICALLY remove it's effect on the outcomes and the "winning team" actually getting less points for winning in a SO than OT.

no team should be awarded for winning in a SO, while another teams gets NOTHING for losing in a SO(individual effort) - it is a team game...

With that said, and the mindset that the SO is staying...

Win in regulation or OT - 3 pts

Win in SO - 2pts

Loss in SO - 1 pt

This way teams are still basically docked a pt for winning a team game in a SO, and it encourages more OT wins...

[wings7 62]

I think the NHL should decrease the amount of games in a regular season and have all games end in a winner and loser. Play until somone wins. No back to back games. If you go four ots, you go four ots. That's what is great about hockey, in my opinion. Playoff Overtime. Of course maybe it's just great because it is only happens in the playoffs. Who knows?

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

I think we're basically on the same page, the only thing we seem to be disagreeing with, is the removal of the SO - I think it has it's place... if you go back and see my original suggestion, I want to keep it, but DRASTICALLY remove it's effect on the outcomes and the "winning team" actually getting less points for winning in a SO than OT.

no team should be awarded for winning in a SO, while another teams gets NOTHING for losing in a SO(individual effort) - it is a team game...

With that said, and the mindset that the SO is staying...

Win in regulation or OT - 3 pts

Win in SO - 2pts

Loss in SO - 1 pt

This way teams are still basically docked a pt for winning a team game in a SO, and it encourages more OT wins...

If the SO must stay, I agree that your point system is probably one of the best ways to fix the issue at hand.

[seeinred 1,488]

Wrong. I've complained since they came up with the idea. Hockey is a team sport. You win as a team, you lose as a team. I'd like to see shootouts go the way of the glow puck. I don't care if the Wings win every single shootout they get into - it needs to go as far as I'm concerned.

I, too, have been one decrying the shootout the whole time. OT was fine the way it was before, maybe add 5 minutes to it or something.

But the glow puck may have been the worst idea ever. I think Fox's hockey robots were probably the best idea ever.

[stevkrause 1,247]

I, too, have been one decrying the shootout the whole time. OT was fine the way it was before, maybe add 5 minutes to it or something.

But the glow puck may have been the worst idea ever. I think Fox's hockey robots were probably the best idea ever.

glow puck was hands down the worst thing to ever happen to the game of hockey and I don't think it could ever be surpassed...

[Guest micah]

Hockey games can and have gone on forever... scheduling with networks would never allow for that.

I love the idea of more OT, but it is utterly exhausing for the players... especially 4 on 4 or even 3 on 3, and plus teams shorten their bench in OT.

Baseball games have gone on forever. Those are the games people talk about. 14 innings is a guaranteed story in the news. I expect professional atheletes to be tired after a game. That's their job. If expending that effort for the point or 2 points is not woth it, forfeiting the game is always an option. How bad does your team need those points? Bad enough for your star closer to stay in an extra 2 innings and risk his arm? Bad enough to overwork your 1st liners? Those decisions are part of what make long overtimes so compelling to watch.

Making it to overtime is not half a win and it should not be rewarded. If they're going to give a point to teams that make it to OT, they should give a share of the Cup to any team that loses in OT in game 7 of the Cup finals.

Edited February 1, 2010 by micah