Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Overtime modifications on table at GMs meeting.


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 14 November 2013 - 08:06 AM

From NHL:

 

 

TORONTO -- Ken Holland has long been one of the leading proponents of extending overtime to decide more games before going to a shootout, and the Detroit Red Wings general manager said Tuesday he thinks support for such an action is growing among his peers.

 

Overtime was one of the popular subjects at the GMs meeting in Toronto. Holland has proposed in the past to have five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime followed by five minutes of 3-on-3 before going to a shootout.

 

Reinventing the wheel? As stated above, this proposal of extending the length of the overtime period has been presented before. Is this s case of the General Managers souring on the idea of the shootout (a "gift" from Uncle Gary after Lockout One)? Overall, is the basic idea of a longer overtime period in the regular season good/bad/indifferent for the "greatest fans in the world", players and the game as a whole.


"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#2 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,609 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 14 November 2013 - 08:45 AM

Get rid of the shootout altogether, no point for losing in overtime, problem solved. Not sure why they refuse to go that route. Teams will play to win if they don't get anything. There's no reason to treat a loss in overtime as a half win
Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#3 BadgerBob

BadgerBob

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 332 posts
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN

Posted 14 November 2013 - 09:23 AM

Shoot outs make no sense. Baseball doesn't have a home run derby after one extra inning, you don't see a dunk contest in basketball deciding who wins. It isn't hockey, it's a skill competition.



#4 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,519 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 10:22 AM

Get rid of the shootout altogether, no point for losing in overtime, problem solved. Not sure why they refuse to go that route. Teams will play to win if they don't get anything. There's no reason to treat a loss in overtime as a half win

So, you are suggesting going back to potentially ending with ties or extending overtime until someone wins?  Your comment isn't clear.  If it is the former, your suggestion that teams will play to win likely wrong.  In that scenario, teams will play not to lose so they can keep that single point from a tie.


  • Nev likes this

#5 dat's sick

dat's sick

    Fear can hold you prisoner, hope can set you free

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,352 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 November 2013 - 10:30 AM

10 minute 4-on-4 would be ideal, but I guess 3-on-3 could be interesting. As long as they extend OT I'm for it, shootouts are simply not a fun way to end a good hockey game.

#6 amato

amato

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,651 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 10:40 AM

Not that they could regulate it this way at all but shootouts are an exciting way to end a high scoring tie game imo.. low scoring, not so much.

Anyway, I'm all for extending OT a little but continuous until someone wins would be a little excessive.

I'd like 10 min 4v4 then a shootout. Or, if they want to get rid of shootouts completely, a point shouldn't be rewarded for an OT loss but could be for a tie after the 10 min..

Edited by amato, 14 November 2013 - 10:42 AM.

Datsyukian

Dat·syu·ki·an [dat-soo-kee-uh n]

adjective

          1. When your moves are so amazing and beyond reason, the only way to describe them is "datsyukian."


#7 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,936 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 14 November 2013 - 10:54 AM

How about five minutes of 4-4, followed by five minutes of 3-3, and if it's still tied, each team gets one point?

 

Then have a shootout which wouldn't be worth any points, but the teams with the best shootout % get the first draft picks instead of using a lottery system.  (All other teams that wouldn't be considered for lottery go in the order that they would go in anyway, so it would only count for bottom teams.)

 

No three-point games.  Shootout fans get to see a shootout.  Side bets can be settled with the shootout results, so there's always a winner and loser in case you and your buddy are deciding who has to buy beer for the next game, or something important like that.  People who don't like shootouts can just shut off the tv after the tie is over.

 

Maybe, just to make sure that both teams put the effort into it, they can make a rule that the losing team has to buy the winning team cookies.  Or something.



#8 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,609 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 14 November 2013 - 11:03 AM

So, you are suggesting going back to potentially ending with ties or extending overtime until someone wins?  Your comment isn't clear.  If it is the former, your suggestion that teams will play to win likely wrong.  In that scenario, teams will play not to lose so they can keep that single point from a tie.


I wouldn't give a point for a tie, either. This isn't a sport where you get trophies for participation. But I guess you'd have to keep the shootout to prevent endless OT games. But if shootout are kept, I think the stats should count. If you score a goal in a shootout, it should add to a player's stats. If a breakaway or a penalty shot counts, shootout should, too.
Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#9 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,519 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 12:19 PM

I wouldn't give a point for a tie, either. This isn't a sport where you get trophies for participation. But I guess you'd have to keep the shootout to prevent endless OT games. But if shootout are kept, I think the stats should count. If you score a goal in a shootout, it should add to a player's stats. If a breakaway or a penalty shot counts, shootout should, too.

So, you'll end up with teams playing not to lose (defensive shells) and take their chances in the shootout as they will fear going pointless.

 

On your other point, there is no logical argument as to why shootout goals should be included in a player's stats.  Thankfully, that will never be included as an agenda item with the NHL.  You can try and equate it to a breakaway or a penatly shot during a game, but breakaways and penalty shots during a game are earned through playing the game.....shootout attempts are just handed to you.



#10 Dabura

Dabura

    Everydayer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,120 posts
  • Location:In an octopus's garden

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:22 PM

Howzabout this.

 

No points are awarded for a tie at the end of regulation. Instead, we go to an OT PP dealy.

 

Round 1

 

A two-minute 5-on-4 for each side. A PP goal would mean the end of the PP, just like in regulation. If one team scores on its PP and the other team doesn't score on its opportunity, that's two points for the former and zero for the latter, game over - unless the team that didn't score on its PP opportunity scores a shorthanded goal. (Shorthanded goals have the same value as PP goals, except they don't end the other team's PP, just like in regulation.)  If both teams finish even, we go to a second round.

 

Round 2

 

Now it's a 5-on-3 for each side. Again, winner gets two points, loser gets zero. A tie would be the final result, with one point awarded to each team.

 

All goals would contribute to the final score. So, a game that's 3-3 after three periods could end up at 5-5, or as high as 7-7 (each side scores a PP goal and a shorthanded goal in Round 1 and Round 2).

 

I have to figure out what to do about penalties.


Edited by Dabura, 14 November 2013 - 03:46 PM.

Don't Toews me, bro!


#11 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,615 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 14 November 2013 - 01:30 PM

Uncle Gary has many, many times said in the past, and will continue to say many, many times in the future, that his "creation" answers a solution to the need for the sports fan to leave whatever game they are attending seeing with the very same outcome: his League will see a winner and a loser at the end of every single game.

There is nothing wrong with a game ending in a tie; it worked for years.


"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#12 VM1138

VM1138

    Legend

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,609 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 14 November 2013 - 02:24 PM

So, you'll end up with teams playing not to lose (defensive shells) and take their chances in the shootout as they will fear going pointless.

 

On your other point, there is no logical argument as to why shootout goals should be included in a player's stats.  Thankfully, that will never be included as an agenda item with the NHL.  You can try and equate it to a breakaway or a penatly shot during a game, but breakaways and penalty shots during a game are earned through playing the game.....shootout attempts are just handed to you.

 

No logical argument?  You made one argument against it, but it doesn't negate mine that a player still has to do everything the same as in a game.  He has to beat the goalie, and the goalie has to stop it.  Shootout attempts are earned in the sense that the coach thinks you have the skill to score.  It's the same "earned" opportunity as when a coach gives a player ice time.  


Check out my short e-book on the Red Wings' 1937 Stanley Cup championship entitled: "Nothing Could Keep 'Em Down." Please download it from my profile at Smashwords: https://www.smashwor...ile/view/victor

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

#13 55fan

55fan

    All mine 'til 2-0-1-9

  • HoF Booster
  • 12,936 posts
  • Location:Fargo, ND

Posted 14 November 2013 - 02:29 PM

Uncle Gary has many, many times said in the past, and will continue to say many, many times in the future, that his "creation" answers a solution to the need for the sports fan to leave whatever game they are attending seeing with the very same outcome: his League will see a winner and a loser at the end of every single game.

There is nothing wrong with a game ending in a tie; it worked for years.

I read this completely wrong and thought that you were saying that Gary was going to create a league in which every game ends in a tie.  Talk about parity! 

 

Next time I'll wake up my brain before I read.  Or maybe not... it was kind of funny figuring it out.



#14 Dabura

Dabura

    Everydayer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,120 posts
  • Location:In an octopus's garden

Posted 14 November 2013 - 03:49 PM

Howzabout this.

 

No points are awarded for a tie at the end of regulation. Instead, we go to an OT PP dealy.

 

Round 1

 

A two-minute 5-on-4 for each side. A PP goal would mean the end of the PP, just like in regulation. If one team scores on its PP and the other team doesn't score on its opportunity, that's two points for the former and zero for the latter, game over - unless the team that didn't score on its PP opportunity scores a shorthanded goal. (Shorthanded goals have the same value as PP goals, except they don't end the other team's PP, just like in regulation.)  If both teams finish even, we go to a second round.

 

Round 2

 

Now it's a 5-on-3 for each side. Again, winner gets two points, loser gets zero. A tie would be the final result, with one point awarded to each team.

 

All goals would contribute to the final score. So, a game that's 3-3 after three periods could end up at 5-5, or as high as 7-7 (each side scores a PP goal and a shorthanded goal in Round 1 and Round 2).

 

I have to figure out what to do about penalties.

 

In retrospect, I made this sound way more complicated than it would really be.


Don't Toews me, bro!


#15 Son of a Wing

Son of a Wing

    London Lions Captain

  • Gold Booster
  • 1,900 posts
  • Location:London, Ontario

Posted 14 November 2013 - 03:57 PM

 

In retrospect, I made this sound way more complicated than it would really be.

 

Regardless, It's just a bad idea. lol You're turning it into a circus.  Same with the thought of including SO goals in stats.  Never ever going to happen. 

 

Try and change the game too much and it turns into a joke.  I would prefer 3 on 3 instead of SO but I can't ever see them swallowing their pride and eliminating it.  Just attempting to make them less frequent.


"The leader must never close the gap between himself and the group. If he does, he is no longer what he must be. He must walk a tightrope between the consent he must win and the control he must exert."
Vince Lombardi
 
When asked who won, Babcock said, “Well it doesn’t really matter as long as you don’t lose. It’s like going bear hunting, you take a slow guy with you in case the bear is hungry.”

#16 Franzine

Franzine

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 04:16 PM

4 minutes 4-on-4

3 minutes 3-on-3

2 minutes 2-on-2

1 minute 1-on-1

30 seconds goalie-on-goalie

Still tied: goalie fight



#17 DatsyukToZetterberg

DatsyukToZetterberg

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 467 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 04:20 PM

With how dreadful we are in OT, any change to the system is detrimental to us.

#18 wings87

wings87

    Wake Up!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,014 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 November 2013 - 06:20 PM

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I hate shootouts. I've hated them ever since they where introduced after the lockout. Baseball doesn't decide extra inning games with a Home Run Derby and NHL games shouldn't be decided by a skills competition.


"He usually shows up when the game is over and tries to be the hero. Puts his cape on and goes and flies out there." ~ Franzen 


#19 dirtydangles

dirtydangles

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,950 posts

Posted 14 November 2013 - 07:13 PM

Howzabout this.

 

No points are awarded for a tie at the end of regulation. Instead, we go to an OT PP dealy.

 

Round 1

 

A two-minute 5-on-4 for each side. A PP goal would mean the end of the PP, just like in regulation. If one team scores on its PP and the other team doesn't score on its opportunity, that's two points for the former and zero for the latter, game over - unless the team that didn't score on its PP opportunity scores a shorthanded goal. (Shorthanded goals have the same value as PP goals, except they don't end the other team's PP, just like in regulation.)  If both teams finish even, we go to a second round.

 

Round 2

 

Now it's a 5-on-3 for each side. Again, winner gets two points, loser gets zero. A tie would be the final result, with one point awarded to each team.

 

All goals would contribute to the final score. So, a game that's 3-3 after three periods could end up at 5-5, or as high as 7-7 (each side scores a PP goal and a shorthanded goal in Round 1 and Round 2).

 

I have to figure out what to do about penalties.

This gave me an idea... what if the OT was a 3min PP for one team with a coin flip determining who has it. If the PP team scores its over and if it is killed off the PK team wins it. At least it is more team oriented way of settling games. Still in favour of the good ol tie though.


Is there a kickstarter campaign for Jakub Kindl to never play another NHL game?


#20 rrasco

rrasco

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,122 posts
  • Location:Texas

Posted 14 November 2013 - 07:32 PM

This gave me an idea... what if the OT was a 3min PP for one team with a coin flip determining who has it. If the PP team scores its over and if it is killed off the PK team wins it. At least it is more team oriented way of settling games. Still in favour of the good ol tie though.

 

If anything, I think it should be more like football.  Each team gets the opportunity to score, but if the PK team gets a shorty, they should win.  I have no clue what to do if both teams score.


Kronwalled.net - Keep Yer Head up Kid






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users