• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
T-Ruff

New Overtime Format Coming?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest Hatethedrake!   
Guest Hatethedrake!

I'd like to see the league go back to its original roots. After 60 minutes and the game is tied then it ends with both teams getting a point. If each team gets 20 ties then so be it. Save the overtimes for the playoffs. Shootouts suck. Its a garbage way to win a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was funny that no one mentioned that this is our very own Ken Holland trying to push this through:

Ken Holland OT

Anyways - I think a lot of you have it all wrong when it comes to OT. First off - what we need to concentrate on is the allocation of points. Having 4 columns of points in the sports section of the sunday paper looks stupid, is harder to understand for non-hockey enthusiasts (and yes, if you care about your sport, you need to learn to incorporate these types of fans. Honestly, it makes it look like the NHL can't get its s*** together.

They are overthinking this. While I get it, why complicate it some more?

Personally, I like the shootout, even though the Wings have struggled with it for whatever reason(s) recently.

The problem isn't overtime format, IT'S THE POINT SYSTEM. You get a point for losing, that's just silly.

0 points for losing at any point in the game, no questions asked.

1 point for a shootout victory

2 points for a win in regulation/overtime

SPOT ON.

For those of you who were wondering, shootouts are NOT stupid - so quit saying it is. Your stupid if you don't realize that a whole pub can be completely ignoring a hockey game as it plays in the background but as soon as the first person sees that the game is headed to a shootout, people stop what they are doing AND THEY WATCH. My own league just converted to an OT shootout format because of the excitement (fans and players). Dont try to argue by saying, "well we dont care about those fans!"

There are many many reasons why you should care about those "casual" fans - and I guess i'll get into those points if someone is actually stupid enough to tell me otherwise.

I don't want to hear that we need to give a team a point for making it through regulation. No we dont. It isnt in the constitution. The system treats every team fairly so no one can *****.

I also don't understand how people can say they think the shootout is lame and corny, but then think 3on3 hockey is a brilliant idea. 3on3 hockey is WAY more gimmicky than a shootout and though gimmicks do but asses in the seat, if you cross a certain threshold, people don't respect your sport (see the XFL).

I think all this tinkering hurts the integrity and credibility of the game - especially changes having to do with wins and losses. Any change they make should be agreed to be in effect for a long period of time, like 10 years or something like that. Otherwise it just seems like they're ******* around with the game.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hatethedrake!   
Guest Hatethedrake!

Nope, you don't get it. Shootouts ARE stupid. Nuff said.

Edited by Hatethedrake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to the same format the league had 10 years ago. The OT will be 5 minutes of 4 on 4 like it is now.

2 points for a regulation win

0 points for a regulation/OT loss

1 point for a tie.

This new proposal is just a silly format. 3 on 3 hockey? It's fun to watch, but it's not much more legitimate than having a shootout. I mean, how often do you see 3 on 3 during an actual game? Just another way to give out hokey points for entertainment value.

What's so bad about having a tie? Just means neither team was good enough to win the game in actual play, hence neither team deserves the extra point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's so bad about having a tie? Just means neither team was good enough to win the game in actual play, hence neither team deserves the extra point.

The one problem we'd see (and I know we used to see it in the past) is that teams will take fewer risks in OT, knowing they could lose the tie point. Fewer risks mean a lessened chance of that tie being broken.

Of course, we have a similar problem with the shootouts now - teams that are highly skilled in the shootout will play for the tie in OT, simply waiting for the almost-guaranteed win in the shootout.

Given the choice between the two, however, I'd prefer to go back to the former. At least that doesn't award loser points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel as though we've discussed this a million times on this board... I do agree with many others that they need to keep the changes to a minimum and they should not be changing them ever couple years, it DOES affect credibility AND makes it hard for new fans to catch on, when things are constantly changing... with that said, in a perfect world, they would have got it right, right out of the lockout, but they didn't and it needs adjustment... the problem is... it needs one last adjustment and then they need to leave it as is for at least 10 years... I've been very adamant about my stance on this and I still think the 3pt system is the single best solution - Reward teams who win as a team and make all games worth the same cumulative point total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one problem we'd see (and I know we used to see it in the past) is that teams will take fewer risks in OT, knowing they could lose the tie point. Fewer risks mean a lessened chance of that tie being broken.

Of course, we have a similar problem with the shootouts now - teams that are highly skilled in the shootout will play for the tie in OT, simply waiting for the almost-guaranteed win in the shootout.

Given the choice between the two, however, I'd prefer to go back to the former. At least that doesn't award loser points.

I don't remember teams being any less aggressive in the past than they are now when it comes to OT play. You sort of said so yourself.

Win/loss records and points are so inflated nowadays because of this blasted shootout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are overthinking this. While I get it, why complicate it some more?

Personally, I like the shootout, even though the Wings have struggled with it for whatever reason(s) recently.

The problem isn't overtime format, IT'S THE POINT SYSTEM. You get a point for losing, that's just silly.

0 points for losing at any point in the game, no questions asked.

1 point for a shootout victory

2 points for a win in regulation/overtime

I'm still not crazy about this one, as it makes some games worth a different cumulative point total than others, but I can get on board with this one a LOT more than going back to stupid ties, or the current jacked up point system, which makes SO games worth MORE (grand total points awarded on the night)

I don't have a problem with the consolation point for teams that lose in a SO, because you're not losing as a team and it's essentially a tie+

Reg/OT Win - 3pts

SO Win - 2pts

SO Loss - 1pt

Loss in Reg/OT - 0pts

ALL GAMES WORTH 3 TOTAL POINTS. It seems maddeningly obvious to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO would it be 2, 4 minute periods where the first one is 4v4 and the second OT period 3v3? Or would teams have to switch on the fly at the 4 minute mark?

I'm still not crazy about this one, as it makes some games worth a different cumulative point total than others, but I can get on board with this one a LOT more than going back to stupid ties, or the current jacked up point system, which makes SO games worth MORE (grand total points awarded on the night)

I don't have a problem with the consolation point for teams that lose in a SO, because you're not losing as a team and it's essentially a tie+

Reg/OT Win - 3pts

SO Win - 2pts

SO Loss - 1pt

Loss in Reg/OT - 0pts

ALL GAMES WORTH 3 TOTAL POINTS. It seems maddeningly obvious to me...

I've always thought this was obvious as well. Hell, even only 2 pts for OT win and 1 pt OT loss. Three point system just season easier and more efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give 3 points out for regulation wins, then teams will have even more inflated records and point totals.

No reason to award more points. We need to award less.

Ok

1pt - Reg/OT win

.66pts - SO win

.33pts - SO loss

There, does that make you happier, since you're so hung up on a ridiculous point total in total amount, instead of the value of the total and what it represents....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shoreline   
Guest Shoreline

I never liked shootouts to decide a tiebreaker, as entertaining as they are.

And these OT's aren't indicative enough of an earned win when teams can just squat on the last regulation minutes, then squat on OT, to hope for the SO.

Go with a full 20 minute OT period and if they can't resolve the difference they deserve the tie.

Edited by Shoreline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok

1pt - Reg/OT win

.66pts - SO win

.33pts - SO loss

There, does that make you happier, since you're so hung up on a ridiculous point total in total amount, instead of the value of the total and what it represents....

Why the overreaction?

If you had bothered to read earlier, you'd have seen my proposal. I'm just talking about a reversion to the old point system.

And yeah, I do have a problem with points being awarded for just about every possible thing aside from a regulation loss. I mean, if you lose in OT in the playoffs, you don't get squat. Why should it be different in the regular season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the overreaction?

If you had bothered to read earlier, you'd have seen my proposal. I'm just talking about a reversion to the old point system.

And yeah, I do have a problem with points being awarded for just about every possible thing aside from a regulation loss. I mean, if you lose in OT in the playoffs, you don't get squat. Why should it be different in the regular season?

I did read earlier and as I've said several times, going back to ties is a horrible idea for the regular season... we're not discussing playoffs here, that format is perfect and should NEVER change... we're discussing the regular season.

They cannot play forever for a win as a team, because they need to get to the next city and need time to recuperate for a long 82 game schedule, but ties suck. Ties leave the fans walking out of the arena feeling as though they've wasted their time and as if they just watced a 2.5 hour game, for essentially no outcome - whether you feel that way or not is neither here nor there - it IS the majority.

Just concede to the fact there is, and WILL be a shootout and with that in mind - the current system sucks.

A team should not be awarded the same point total for winning as individuals, nor should a team be punished for losing as individuals with a goose-egg, after they played a hard fought 65 minute game with no result. Also, although I don't hate the 2-1-0 format(2 for reg/ot win, 1 for so win, 0 for loss) it still makes the sum total of points awarded for a game inconsistent and jacks up standings...

The 3 point system allows for all games to be worth the same cumulative total, while putting an emphasis on winning AS A TEAM and makes the shootout worth less, essentially making it a tie+

Edited by stevkrause

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, you don't get it. Shootouts ARE stupid. Nuff said.

I'll resist taking the bait and add this -

As the only OT round, yes....shootouts are stupid. But supplying it after a formal OT round = not stupid. Because at that point, nothing is lost....or in lamens terms, who really gives a s***?

The one problem we'd see (and I know we used to see it in the past) is that teams will take fewer risks in OT, knowing they could lose the tie point. Fewer risks mean a lessened chance of that tie being broken.

Of course, we have a similar problem with the shootouts now - teams that are highly skilled in the shootout will play for the tie in OT, simply waiting for the almost-guaranteed win in the shootout.

Given the choice between the two, however, I'd prefer to go back to the former. At least that doesn't award loser points.

disagree with your point. I do not think that a coach has ever said, "hey boys, lets rest on our laurels for the next five minutes and guarantee us this point."

Why? Because its a cardinal rule when coaching hockey that if you "play not to lose" - then you always end up getting scored on.

You'll probably come back and say that a coach will change their strategy to be more defensive....like the left wing lock. A team doesn't do that unless its already a main part of their overall game plan. You would NEVER gamble by switching to a new scheme at the end of a game. That would do the opposite of what you are trying to do - like guarantee that OT point.

No team practices any strategy that they may or may not use for 5 minutes in a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll resist taking the bait and add this -

As the only OT round, yes....shootouts are stupid. But supplying it after a formal OT round = not stupid. Because at that point, nothing is lost....or in lamens terms, who really gives a s***?

disagree with your point. I do not think that a coach has ever said, "hey boys, lets rest on our laurels for the next five minutes and guarantee us this point."

Why? Because its a cardinal rule when coaching hockey that if you "play not to lose" - then you always end up getting scored on.

You'll probably come back and say that a coach will change their strategy to be more defensive....like the left wing lock. A team doesn't do that unless its already a main part of their overall game plan. You would NEVER gamble by switching to a new scheme at the end of a game. That would do the opposite of what you are trying to do - like guarantee that OT point.

No team practices any strategy that they may or may not use for 5 minutes in a game.

DEAD ON!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear NHL,

Quit screwing with the game.

Thank you.

I agree 100%, but the problem is, they have such crappy leadership that they can't get it right the first time... and I'd rather them get it right...

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...

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

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