94 replies to this topic

[Travis]

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 by Travis, 01 February 2010 - 11:03 AM.

[Opie]

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 by Opie, 01 February 2010 - 11:02 AM.

[StevieY9802]

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 by StevieY9802, 01 February 2010 - 11:02 AM.

[stevkrause]

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 by stevkrause, 01 February 2010 - 11:26 AM.

[stevkrause]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[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 by micah, 01 February 2010 - 11:49 AM.

[seeinred]

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.

That would be the most awkward Cup presentation ceremony ever.

[micah]

That would be the most awkward Cup presentation ceremony ever.

In a way, all the teams are winners. Keeping score is SO 1990s.

[Hockeytown0001]

In a way, all the teams are winners. Keeping score is SO 1990s.

[seeinred]

In a way, all the teams are winners. Keeping score is SO 1990s.

Well, getting your feelings hurt does suck. We have to protect these grown men from that kind of pain.

[Electrophile]

Count me in the group that says "eff the shootout". It's stupid, it's a gimmick, it should be reserved for the ASG or similar competitions, not games that count in the standings that affect playoff chances. It's ridiculous.

Furthermore, I'd like to see them re-do the points system. You only get points if you win the game. If you lose the game, you get no points. Stop rewarding teams who failed to do their job in the 60-minute allotted time frame. You play three periods. If the score is tied, you go to OT. If the score is tied after OT, it's counted as a tie in the standings and neither team gets any points since nobody won.

[mindfly]

Count me in the group that says "eff the shootout". It's stupid, it's a gimmick, it should be reserved for the ASG or similar competitions, not games that count in the standings that affect playoff chances. It's ridiculous.

Furthermore, I'd like to see them re-do the points system. You only get points if you win the game. If you lose the game, you get no points. Stop rewarding teams who failed to do their job in the 60-minute allotted time frame. You play three periods. If the score is tied, you go to OT. If the score is tied after OT, it's counted as a tie in the standings and neither team gets any points since nobody won.

Or you do as the rest of the world and both teams are awarded with 1point.

Edited by mindfly, 01 February 2010 - 12:26 PM.

[Electrophile]

Why? There was no winner. You only get points if you win the game. A tie is not a win. It's not a loss, but it's not a win. If you can't win the game, you get jack s***.

[Z Winged Dangler]

I still like them. You can still have them without having a dinky point for losing in overtime or a shootout.

0 points for a loss at any point in a game, no questions asked.
1 point for a win in a shooutout.
2 points for a win in overtime.
3 points for a win in regulation.

You get rid of your "parity" right there.

i've been hoping for the NHL to bring in this exact system for years!

[GMRwings1983]

2 points for an OT win (five min 4 on 4 OT)
1 point for a tie
0 points for an OT loss


Pretty simple.

[GMRwings1983]

Why? There was no winner. You only get points if you win the game. A tie is not a win. It's not a loss, but it's not a win. If you can't win the game, you get jack s***.

I actually agree.

If a team isn't good enough to win in regulation or in OT, they don't deserve 2 points. Why should they get an extra point for winning some silly shootout.

There's nothing wrong with ties, and quite frankly, a shootout is the same thing as a tie in theory. It's just that someone gets an extra point for the nonsense.

A tie just means neither team was better than the other. That's why both teams should get 1 point for being equal.