New Overtime Format Coming?

[T-Ruff 47]

and the first one to do... IS THE 3 POINT SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

100% agreed, but I am also ok with this slow feeling out process they are doing. (Not to say testing in the AHL would be a bad idea, quite the contrary).

Here is what they need to do to finally come to the perfect system, and IMO it is inevitable that they make it here:

1. Make every game worth 3 points, one way or the other. 3 for a win in regulation, 2 for a win in OT or Shootout, 1 for a loss in OT or shootout. Fair to everyone.

2. 4 on 4 OT followed by 3 on 3 OT. Better than the current system and better than the pre-lockout system, adds much excitement while also cutting down on shootouts

3. Make shootouts 5 skaters a side. Soccer does 5, international hockey does 5, where the hell did they ever get 3 from?

This is what can never be done for a variety of reasons:

- Award no points for losing in OT or Shootout

- Go back to having ties

- Introduce shootouts or 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 stuff into the playoffs

- have continuous OT during the regular season

And on a complete sidenote: They need to start the season in mid to late September, so that the playoffs finish before June and then they can bump up the draft and UFA day so that the latter doesn't fall on North American holiday weekends (July 1st and 4th)

Edited October 19, 2010 by T-Ruff

[stevkrause 1,247]

100% agreed, but I am also ok with this slow feeling out process they are doing. (Not to say testing in the AHL would be a bad idea, quite the contrary).

Here is what they need to do to finally come to the perfect system, and IMO it is inevitable that they make it here:

1. Make every game worth 3 points, one way or the other. 3 for a win in regulation, 2 for a win in OT or Shootout, 1 for a loss in OT or shootout. Fair to everyone.

2. 4 on 4 OT followed by 3 on 3 OT. Better than the current system and better than the pre-lockout system, adds much excitement while also cutting down on shootouts

3. Make shootouts 5 skaters a side. Soccer does 5, international hockey does 5, where the hell did they ever get 3 from?

This is what can never be done for a variety of reasons:

- Award no points for losing in OT or Shootout

- Go back to having ties

- Introduce shootouts or 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 stuff into the playoffs

- have continuous OT during the regular season

And on a complete sidenote: They need to start the season in mid to late September, so that the playoffs finish before June and then they can bump up the draft and UFA day so that the latter doesn't fall on North American holiday weekends (July 1st and 4th)

There are a few minor points (splitting hairs) that I would like different, but overall, this is EXACTLY what the league needs...

Your sidenote is a very poignant one as well, I've thought for awhile that the league should start sooner and end sooner as well... and it would be the SOLE sport with impact playoff games in May, which would be great for ratings as well...

I wish I could give more than just a +1 for this post...

Edited October 19, 2010 by stevkrause

[Guest Stolberg]

win - 2 points

lose (regulation or OT) - 0 points

no ties

give me my money now nhl

[MacK_Attack 108]

All these overtime rules came along as ways to make the end of the game more exciting. Back in the age of ties, teams would shut it down in the 3rd period and overtime, and basically played to get the point.

So they combated that by adding the loser point, while keeping ties. It worked for a time, but then teams decided they would rather split the two points than give their opponent an extra point (particularly in division & conference games) and again teams just held on for the tie. In fact, the season prior to the lockout produced something like 170 tie games.

So here comes the shootout. But I think the problem with shootout was that the league did not alter the points structure, so teams eventually started playing to get to overtime, then playing to get to the shootout, resulting in some particularly dull 3rd periods as teams sat back and waited for the clock to run out.

The problem as I see it with abolishing the points system (i.e. points for winners only) is that teams will more so than ever sit back and wait for the shootout and try their luck to get the two points.

I think perhaps the solution is for two points for a regulation or overtime win and 1 point for a shootout win. If you want to add some time to the clock in order to give teams more time to decide it before the shootout, fine.

The league has sort of backed itself into a corner by clearly indicating they don't like shootouts, but also don't want to go back to ties. I don't think the 'PA would agree to playing overtime until somebody wins, so I doubt it will ever get that far.

All the league can do now is try to minimize the impact of the shootout and the number of them.

[Travis 576]

Ahh what's wrong with roller hockey.

There's nothing wrong with playing roller hockey, but there's are reasons that it isn't televised anymore.

[kook_10 1,705]

What they need(ed) to do, was/is keep having these Shanahan summits and then after 5 years of GM votes(after each rule change was tested for a full season in the AHL), THEN make one set of changes all at once and don't mess with it again for at least another 5 years... at least way, it ensure that the game is played the same way for a consistent period of time before any changes...

Rule changes should be part of the CBA.

[T-Ruff 47]

The league has sort of backed itself into a corner by clearly indicating they don't like shootouts, but also don't want to go back to ties. I don't think the 'PA would agree to playing overtime until somebody wins, so I doubt it will ever get that far.

Not to mention it's simply not practical for regular season TV and travel schedules

Edited October 20, 2010 by T-Ruff

[MacK_Attack 108]

Not to mention it's simply not practical for regular season TV and travel schedules

Precisely why they wouldn't agree to it.

Ties are never coming back, they're just bad news. Teams are simply too glad to take the point and move on.

The shootout has to stay, and I think the format will have to change in order to see fewer of them.

[55fan 5,133]

Play 60 minutes. If tied, put both goaltenders for both teams in the net and give each skater a puck. On the count of 3, all skaters shoot at the same time. (If your bench is short- tough titties. You get one fewer puck.)

The team with the fewest pucks in the back of their net wins.

If still tied, do it again until someone wins.

Win as a team; lose as a team.

No more shootouts and everyone's happy. Well, maybe not the goalies, but you can be sure they'd try like crazy not to let the game get tied.

[stevkrause 1,247]

Play 60 minutes. If tied, put both goaltenders for both teams in the net and give each skater a puck. On the count of 3, all skaters shoot at the same time. (If your bench is short- tough titties. You get one fewer puck.)

The team with the fewest pucks in the back of their net wins.

If still tied, do it again until someone wins.

Win as a team; lose as a team.

No more shootouts and everyone's happy. Well, maybe not the goalies, but you can be sure they'd try like crazy not to let the game get tied.

[VM1138 1,921]

I like the idea of 2 points for a win, no points for any kind of loss. But honestly it's just a number, if they go for a 3 point system it's unnecessarily complicated but it's still just a number.

[Offsides 21]

I just wish they'd pick something and stick with it.

I'm sick of teams getting a point for making it to OT then losing. That is just stupid.

I actually am in the minority here who like the shootouts. Ties are just meh. Ties are, to me, an anticlimactic way to end a game. Shootouts can be exciting, and even if they aren't maybe the most fair way to judge...well, don't let your team GET to that point then. Does it really matter at that point if you lose in OT or lose in the shootout if you still get a stinking point for losing...

[Guest Shoreline]

I personally wouldn't care about ties if playing hockey wasn't so intense nowadays and games weren't so numerous and close together, leading to more possible injuries. For the playoffs, it makes a lot of sense to do a normal 5 on 5 continuous OT. For the regular season, there's nothing to be down about to see a tie. These gimmicks they've kept trying to do really turn a 60+ minute battle into a joke of a conclusion. Extent OT to 20 mins like a 4th period and if they can't resolve the tie then just give em the tie and go home with a point. While the NHL might be thinking of marketing with a shootout, the main issue that remains or remained with both kinds of OT (OT tie and OT/SO) is that teams milk(ed) the clock for the result of a tie or the result of a shootout. There was no incentive to play hard in those extra frames since the time was so short. Making OT significantly longer will make players more prone to mistakes, and likely make coaches strategically think about winning in OT opposed to just playing for a tie or shootout. Then there's the long touted idea of giving more points for regulation wins, but that's just my view of a sensible idea on changing post-regulation play -- and preferably keeping it that way.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Shoreline

[Guest Heaten]

i'm sick of OT and SO. It's pathetic when two teams play the last 10 minutes not to lose when the score is tied. Most boring hockey ever (Vancouver Vs Chicago tonight was a lame game).

I think OT should be an automatic -2 points per team and the loser gets a -3. So if the team has 39 points, if they go to OT and win, they move down to 37 points. The loser moves down 3 points.

This will make teams hustle to close the game in Regular time instead of playing for the point.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Heaten

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

From Toronto Star:

...

“I’d just like to see more games decided by playing hockey,” said Detroit GM Ken Holland.

...

[stevkrause 1,247]

i'm sick of OT and SO. It's pathetic when two teams play the last 10 minutes not to lose when the score is tied. Most boring hockey ever (Vancouver Vs Chicago tonight was a lame game).

I think OT should be an automatic -2 points per team and the loser gets a -3. So if the team has 39 points, if they go to OT and win, they move down to 37 points. The loser moves down 3 points.

This will make teams hustle to close the game in Regular time instead of playing for the point.

This better be sarcasm...

[T-Ruff 47]

UPDATE:

When Lebrun mentioned it on CBC last month he was pretty confident most GMs would be in favour, however, on the 2nd intermission of NYI @ OTT just now Darren Dreger mentioned that all signs seem to indicate that it won't fly, "the commissioner loves the shootout" and I guess that means most other GMS do too...

I'm still optimistic that it could get changed by next year

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

They need to quit messing with the sport on the ice. They've messed it up enough with all these inconsistent rules and ridiculous penalty calls for just playing hockey, they don't need to mess up overtime. Nothing wrong with the overtime format. If you don't like the shootout, cool, that's fine. Plenty people don't in here. I like them even though for whatever reasons the Red Wings haven't had luck with them usually lately. That being said I'm perfectly fine with going back to a W-L-T system as well. The problem is how teams are rewarded for overtime for NOT WINNING.

No points for a loss at any point in a game, no questions asked.

One point for a shootout win.

Two points for a win in overtime.

Three points for a regulation win.

That way you weed out the teams that don't deserve to make the playoffs because they couldn't seal enough games in overtime or a shootout.

Edited November 5, 2010 by SouthernWingsFan