Overtime modifications on table at GMs meeting.

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

Why can't we just go back to ties? I hate OT in regular season hockey.

[CMatt89 63]

Ken Holland must be sick of losing in shootouts, now he has to change the rules so he can win with the likes of Dan Cleary and Mikeal Samuelsson and Kyle Quincey in the lineup every night.

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

Why can't we just go back to ties? I hate OT in regular season hockey.

Don't hear that very often. That's definitely a minority view. I HATE going to see a game, getting all pumped up, only to have it end in a tie. Losing sucks too but a tie just leaves a bitter aftertaste.

Well I guess we're equal boys, let's all go home and sing Kumbaya together.

[Gordie Howe hat trick 110]

Don't hear that very often. That's definitely a minority view. I HATE going to see a game, getting all pumped up, only to have it end in a tie. Losing sucks too but a tie just leaves a bitter aftertaste.

Well I guess we're equal boys, let's all go home and sing Kumbaya together.

I'm saying that if a game ends a tie, both sides were evenly matched and should also get one point a side for a tie, after a well played even match. None of this three point game bulls*** either.

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

I'm saying that if a game ends a tie, both sides were evenly matched and should also get one point a side for a tie, after a well played even match. None of this three point game bulls*** either.

That's fair. I just like there being a definitive winner/loser every game. I'm with ya on getting rid of the "loser point".

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

That's fair. I just like there being a definitive winner/loser every game. I'm with ya on getting rid of the "loser point".

What if neither team deserves to win and the game is even?

Why force someone to get two points by creating gimmicks? Doesn't seem like a deserving extra point if you ask me.

[Bannedforlife 403]

There isn't anything more un-american than a tie. If you think a tie is an acceptable outcome to a competition, maybe you should watch soccer. Or tic-tac-toe. Personally, I like the shootout. At least that way, at the end of overtime, I know that I won't go home with blue balls.

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

There isn't anything more un-american than a tie. If you think a tie is an acceptable outcome to a competition, maybe you should watch soccer. Or tic-tac-toe. Personally, I like the shootout. At least that way, at the end of overtime, I know that I won't go home with blue balls.

LOL. Un-american? That sounds like good old boy crap, which belongs in NASCAR.

A tie is an acceptable outcome when neither side deserves to win. Which American sports fan likes or doesn't like hockey based on shootouts? I've never met one.

Hell, I suppose boxing is un-American too?

[Bannedforlife 403]

LOL. Un-american? That sounds like good old boy crap, which belongs in NASCAR.

A tie is an acceptable outcome when neither side deserves to win. Which American sports fan likes or doesn't like hockey based on shootouts? I've never met one.

Hell, I suppose boxing is un-American too?

You just met one. I like or dislike sporting events based on whether there is a winner and loser, or just a gentlemanly handshake at the end. The commissioner and the majority of general managers and owners of my sporting league of my choice agree with me.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

I wonder what the NHLPA's view on this topic is?

[GMRwings1983 8,793]

You just met one. I like or dislike sporting events based on whether there is a winner and loser, or just a gentlemanly handshake at the end. The commissioner and the majority of general managers and owners of my sporting league of my choice agree with me.

Not sure if having those people on your side is a good thing. Those are the same geniuses that have put the league into 3 lockouts in the last twenty years.

Besides, are you telling me you'd stop watching hockey if they went back to ties? Does that mean you've only been a hockey fan since 2006?

Edited November 16, 2013 by GMRwings1983

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

There isn't anything more un-american than a tie. If you think a tie is an acceptable outcome to a competition, maybe you should watch soccer. Or tic-tac-toe. Personally, I like the shootout. At least that way, at the end of overtime, I know that I won't go home with blue balls.

A tie was an acceptable outcome for the first 20+ years I watched hockey. In Detroit. In America. And is how the game has been played for decades before that.

One could just as easily argue that the NHL got rid of ties to appeal to fans who lack a deep understanding of the game, where the need for a winner is more important than having that winner actually decided by playing hockey. Ones who are ok with teams being awarded a point for losing.

The shootout also cemented the need for the loser point, which inflates standings and artificially forces parity. As a result you have an artificially constructed event to determine the outcome of the game that also artificially influences the standings.

So I see your jingoistic tripe and raise you the integrity of the game.

[RedWingsRox 614]

I wonder what the points would be like in previous years if we had 2 pts for win, 1 pt for both teams when tied after 5 mins of OT ...

I don't really want to see another 10 mins of hockey of OT, it is long enough on most nights. Shootouts are getting old real fast.

Just saying, we're leading the league in OT losses at 7 now ... and counting.

Edited November 17, 2013 by RedWingsRox

[amato 3,210]

if they don't want to change the OT length, i'd be happy enough just making shootout losses the only way to get one point. nothing for OT losses.. there are far too many 3 point games.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

Win = 3 pts

Reg Loss = 0 pts

OT win = 2 pts

OT loss = 0 pt

SO win = 1 pts

SO loss = 0 pts

Winning gets you points. And if you lose YOU GET NOTHING! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!

Edited November 17, 2013 by Wings_Dynasty

[drumnj 459]

Something I was pondering, as I don't like having the 3 points for a regulation win, but still feel there should be something for making it to the shootout.

I'm pretty sure this could be done without turning things into play not to lose.

Reg Win = 2 pts

OT/SO Win = 1 pt

Reg/OT Loss = 0 pts

SO Loss = 0 pts, but counted (like ROW)

In the end it would give incentive to still win it through all parts of the game. However if teams are able to make it a shootout, they give themselves a tie breaker for the standings. The standing would still end up by points being the overall decider first, then OT/SO wins, then SO Losses. Wins still are weighted higher than a loss through game play (just like how ROW is used, except winning in regulation has a better incentive), but losing after going through regulation and OT in what is pretty much skills competition isn't completely for nothing.

[RedWingsRox 614]

What is record for consecutive OT losses? I think we might be onto another record at 5.