67 replies to this topic

[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, 18 October 2010 - 09:15 PM.

[GMRwings1983]

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?

[stevkrause]

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, 19 October 2010 - 09:40 AM.

[AtomicPunk]

Dear NHL,
Quit screwing with the game.

Thank you.

[Hockeymom1960]

4:00 of 3-on-3 is some Roller Hockey League s***.

Ahh what's wrong with roller hockey.

[BigWinston]

I would like to see the same number of point available for every game.

Say, 3 pts per game:
- win in regulation - 3pts
- win in overtime / shootout - 2pts
- loss in overtime / shootout - 1pt
- loss in regulation - 0pts

[martyrme19]

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.

[stevkrause]

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!

[VM1138]

This just seems way too random. 8 minutes of OT?

If they want to change it so much and open it up, why not just do 5 minutes of 3 on 3?

[stevkrause]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!

[T-Ruff]

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 by T-Ruff, 19 October 2010 - 03:06 PM.

[stevkrause]

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 by stevkrause, 19 October 2010 - 03:48 PM.

[Stolberg]

win - 2 points
lose (regulation or OT) - 0 points
no ties

give me my money now nhl

[MacK_Attack]

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]

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]

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]

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 by T-Ruff, 19 October 2010 - 11:49 PM.

[MacK_Attack]

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]

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]

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.