3 on 3 OT is awful.

[JMCx4]

empty the benches for 5 min

Empty the arena after 3 periods of regulation, so the teams can play as long as they want.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I still love it.

 

[Blades Ov Steel]

The 3-2-1 point system would mitigate the impact of 3 on 3 in the standings.

It’s gimmicky pond hockey but it’s far better than a shootout and more exciting than ending a game in a tie.

Just needs less meaning in the standings

I like this but I'd tweak it and go as far as to just remove the participation points all together.

regulation win = 2 points to winning team
3v3 OT until someone scores = 1 point to winning team

turn the hot water heaters off for the losing team, they get nothing but a cold shower

remove the shootout all together

 

[The Shadow]

How about a 10 minute clock. The team that’s scores the most goals in that 10 minutes wins. Zero points for the loser

Would you not see a lot more fun offensive and exciting plays this way?

 

[JoVel]

Whenever you give an incentive for teams to try to not lose rather than win, it'll suck. The 3 point system is right there for the taking but they're never going to do it.

Honestly the bigger issue for me is when a game is tied midway through the 3rd period and both teams already start playing for overtime.

 

[Ghost of Murph]

NHL OT reduces number of skaters by 40%. No other major sport decides games by taking 40% of the players out of the game.

Entertaining or not, it makes no sense to play OT in a manner that is so far removed from the way in which the regulation mins are played. Been of the mind from the get-go, 10 min OT 5 on 5. If no winner by then, too bad. Gimmicks bother me more than ties.

 

[Prettyisland]

empty the benches for 5 min

That Charlie Brown music track plays

Just bring back the tie. Eliminate the shoot out. 10 min of 3 on 3

 

[miscs75]

It’s more tolerable then the shootout where Kuznetsov stops and then glides at -4mph.

 

[ATdaisuki]

If the league is okay with some games being worth different amounts of points than others, they should consider both teams getting no points if it's still tied after overtime. That'll show 'em.

This is not serious.

 

[DrMartinVanNostrand]

I like this but I'd tweak it and go as far as to just remove the participation points all together.

regulation win = 2 points to winning team
3v3 OT until someone scores = 1 point to winning team

turn the hot water heaters off for the losing team, they get nothing but a cold shower

remove the shootout all together

Because 3v3 overtime is a gimmick. It doesn't make sense to punish a team for losing in a gimmick, the losses aren't created equal.

Whenever you give an incentive for teams to try to not lose rather than win, it'll suck. The 3 point system is right there for the taking but they're never going to do it.

Honestly the bigger issue for me is when a game is tied midway through the 3rd period and both teams already start playing for overtime.

Because the NHL is chronically allergic to good ideas. I remember playing NHL 2004 many years ago, and one time I got the idea of playing a European season instead of an NHL season. Pretty sure it was Malmö who I chose and, of all the players on that team who would eventually reach the NHL, it was some 4th-liner with a rating in the low 60s who made it and had a distinguished NHL career - Frans Nielsen. Anyway, when games ended in OT there, that introduced me to 3-2-1-0, and it immediately clicked to me how much more logical that system was. Every game holds the same point value, and if OT and SO are being played under different rules, the least that can be done is a tacit acknowledgment that "yeah, you won, but it's not the same, you know?". It's pretty stupid how often the most frustrating thing when you're scoreboard watching isn't so much hoping that one team beats the other, but just hoping that the game ends in regulation and the winner itself almost being a secondary concern.

Like, in soccer the games don't have equal point values either, but those are games ending in draws, and it's one point removed from the game's value, not one point added. A draw is 1/3 a win and 2/3 a loss, so it ends up being more punishment than reward (numerically speaking, anyway). Further, at least those draws are reached under normal game conditions; to turn back to the first quoted post here, I don't agree with removing a point value from the game under gimmicky conditions. 3v3 is a gimmick, shootouts are a gimmick, neither have ever once been a legitimate means for deciding a game. (Similarly, ghost runners in MLB extra innings are a gimmick as well. Anything that artificially changes the way the game is played is a gimmick, no matter the sport..)

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Its awful hockey but I couldn't care less , 82 regular season games , it's not as big a deal as some say.

And I'm a guy who would want continuous overtime in regular season but that's just not happening

 

[Dr Pepper]

Bringing back ties would certainly put a stop to all the loser point nonsense, and an end to comments like "with the win their record is 12-12-5, they're back to .500!"

 

[Blades Ov Steel]

Because 3v3 overtime is a gimmick. It doesn't make sense to punish a team for losing in a gimmick, the losses aren't created equal.

I see your point and don't disagree with it being a lame way to end a game.

Removing the loser point and cutting overtime wins to 1 point punishes both the losing team and the winning team for not finishing in regulation.

The NHL decided to end games in an "entertaining", time-efficient way, but I don't see the point of the losing team getting a participation point, I think it encourages these outcomes and gives us more 3 v 3 OT hockey

If you get rid of it and make OT less rewarding, teams would be more likely to push for a win in regulation instead of playing for the "gimmick."

Its awful hockey but I couldn't care less , 82 regular season games , it's not as big a deal as some say.

And I'm a guy who would want continuous overtime in regular season but that's just not happening

Same, because I'm unreasonable

 

[FlyguyOX]

Shit no one says.

3 on 3 is awesome. Reducing the strategy in it is stupid.

 

[DrMartinVanNostrand]

I see your point and don't disagree with it being a lame way to end a game.

Removing the loser point and cutting overtime wins to 1 point punishes both the losing team and the winning team for not finishing in regulation.

The NHL decided to end games in an "entertaining", time-efficient way, but I don't see the point of the losing team getting a participation point, I think it encourages these outcomes and gives us more 3 v 3 OT hockey

If you get rid of it and make OT less rewarding, teams would be more likely to push for a win in regulation instead of playing for the "gimmick."

To me, there are two solutions at play here:

3-2-1-0, as already elaborated on in the previous post.

2-0 / 1-1. Regulation results speak for themselves, in OT games 5-10 minutes at either 5v5 or 4v4 (not a big fan of 4v4 but it's still at least closer to the spirit of the game and 4v4 play isn't an entirely uncommon game state), still two points for the winner and zero for the loser, if the game ends tied then everybody goes home.

The American allergy to the tie is frustrating. Sometimes a tie is the most appropriate outcome for a game. Neither team was clearly better than the other, a tie best reflects that. I never once had a problem with games ending in a tie, and I wouldn't complain if they were brought back although quite obviously that will never happen.

This is to say little about how the "every game has a winner or loser" has damaged the records books post-2005 for everything wins-related. The 2018-'19 Lightning "tying" the 1995-'96 Red Wings for most wins in a single season (Lightning had six SO wins that year, the Red Wings never had the opportunity for any), Andrei Vasilevskiy being the "fastest" goalie to 300 wins...it's all bullshit. Those stats are bullshit and deserve zero credence or, at least, should have a post-2005 designation added to them.

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

I tend to agree that the 3v3 OT sucks. I like the way my team, the Panthers, handle it under Paul Maurice, though.

Maurice sends out three forwards and they actually try to win the game. His feeling seems to be that the team got a point, the game was a tie, now it's a fake skills competition, just go have fun.

 

[Dingo]

I would take things in a totally different direction, probably unpopular -

Games simply end after 60 minutes. That's that.

League standings go exclusively by Wins.

If Wins are tied, most Ties will break the tie.

I can't see how both teams wouldnt try for the win this way.

 

[Lshap]

Co-opting basketball's back-over-half rule would certainly solve the issue of keep away through line changes, but it doesn't solve the 3-on-3 gimmick.

I'm still a proponent of 5-on-5 OT. You want a winner? Tell the players the shootout is gone and you play until there's a winner. You'll see teams go for it. That said, I've never had a problem with a game ending in a tie. Not every game deserves a winner, and I'd have no issue going back to 60 minute game, five minute OT, and some ties where the OT point is actually for tying and not losing. Two points for a win, no points for a loss, one point for a tie.

5-minutes of 5-on-5 OT is a decent compromise, and it's a legit way to resolve a game. I'd even be okay with 4-on-4, which is close enough to real hockey. If 5 minutes of legit OT doesn't produce a winner, there was no winner.

That's not the case with today's 3-on-3 OT, which is designed to produce a 'win' no matter what, in a contest played under different rules. I get why people enjoy it – it's entertaining. But it's not a real hockey game, which is why they have to award tie points for the 60 minutes of real hockey that just ended. 3-on-3 OT doesn't replace the results of the full hockey game, it tacks on an extra mini-game.

Sadly, they'll probably stick to the gimmicky OT, because some fans have convinced themselves every game needs a "W", even if it's contrived and unrelated to legitimate hockey.

 

[Blades Ov Steel]

To me, there are two solutions at play here:

3-2-1-0, as already elaborated on in the previous post.

2-0 / 1-1. Regulation results speak for themselves, in OT games 5-10 minutes at either 5v5 or 4v4 (not a big fan of 4v4 but it's still at least closer to the spirit of the game and 4v4 play isn't an entirely uncommon game state), still two points for the winner and zero for the loser, if the game ends tied then everybody goes home.

The American allergy to the tie is frustrating. Sometimes a tie is the most appropriate outcome for a game. Neither team was clearly better than the other, a tie best reflects that. I never once had a problem with games ending in a tie, and I wouldn't complain if they were brought back although quite obviously that will never happen.

This is to say little about how the "every game has a winner or loser" has damaged the records books post-2005 for everything wins-related. The 2018-'19 Lightning "tying" the 1995-'96 Red Wings for most wins in a single season (Lightning had six SO wins that year, the Red Wings never had the opportunity for any), Andrei Vasilevskiy being the "fastest" goalie to 300 wins...it's all bullshit. Those stats are bullshit and deserve zero credence or, at least, should have a post-2005 designation added to them.

Agreed, I’d be all for bringing ties back. I grew up checking scores in the newspaper and watching games end in ties. That said, there are two ways to go about this: either bring back the tie, or, if the NHL insists on a winner and loser, then don’t give the losing team a point to encourage them to win the game sooner.

and yeah.. I’m with you on 4v4 instead if we must have less players, since it makes more sense if the goal is to create more open ice. Plus, it’s something fans are used to seeing during the game anyway.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

It's interesting that when given a large amount of extra space, teams have a tendency to revert to soccer style tactics

 

[Bard Marchand]

Keep 3v3, but invent technology that makes the boards keep shrinking the ice surface like Fortnite until the ice gets shrunk to just the center ice logo. And if any players touch the boards, they die IRL.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Yeah it sucks

 

[McFlash97]

Win the faceoff, go into the attacking zone, throw it around for about 45 seconds, take it back out of the zone and all the way down into your end, change two skaters without letting the other team change, make a play towards the net while doing everything you can to maintain possession. Rinse and repeat.

Since when did we go from end-to-end action to this bullshit cat and mouse game? Every team in the league is doing it now. I don't care if it works, it's boring as shit. I would rather just see them go right to a shootout if this is how it's going to be. Ideally they go back to 4 on 4.

The other thing they could do is implement some type of shot clock system where you have 30 seconds to get a shot on net after receiving possession. As it stands, if you win the opening faceoff, your team has a 70-80% chance of scoring without the other team ever touching the puck.

As others have said, maybe an over and back rule is the answer.

Just because a certain team sucks at it doesn't mean the format sucks

 

[Blades Ov Steel]

I’ve been blessed with the Caps this season and haven’t had to sit through too many OTs but I can definitely remember the last couple seasons, just being relieved we blocked a ton of shots and managed to make it to 3v3 OT for that gimmick point. It’s kind of silly when you think about it, watching teams just hang on for dear life, just playing not to lose and hoping to get to OT.

Hell, we made the playoffs last year that way, when Philly had to pull their goalie in 3v3 OT. It's all comical.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

bingo. no matter what they do, coaches will find a way to coach to risk (aka excitement) out of it

Then take that option out of their hands.

Game goes to OT, both teams get a point.
4-on-4 (or 3-on-3) for 10 minutes, 1 point up for grabs.
If no one has scored after those 10 minutes, it’s a tie. No one gets the extra point.

This will mitigate the “circle back” approach that’s currently in play, and ensure that no team is “playing for the shootout/tie”, as that means the extra point is lost forever.