3 on 3 OT is awful.

[Rodgerwilco]

Yep. And the people disagreeing with you were probably talking about or expecting points percentage.

There can't be an argument when you know there's 2 different numbers and you know which one a person means.

Certainly not in any discussion I can remember. I have no problem with people talking about points percentage. If you look back at the post I initially replied to it's in response to people saying things like a team thats 12-12-5 is ".500".

 

[1865]

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.

The over and back rule works for me, coaching always kills the fun in hockey. 3 on 3 is infinitely preferable to the absolute nonsense that is the shootout. Ties are ok, it works in the most popular sport in the world so it can be fine here too.

 

[mbz]

3 on 3 was amazing at first, constant end to end rushes and A+ chances, then the puck possession, carrying it back to your own zone meta ruined it. Simply add a back court vialoation rule like the NBA at the redline.

 

[Evergreen]

Just don’t let teams carry the puck back over the redline in OT and it’s fixed.

They will just pass it back to their goalie instead of carrying it.

 

[Juxta Position]

This times a thousand. Will never happen, though.

Agreed. Bettman loves his fake parity in the league.

 

[cliffclaven]

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.

That sounds great In theory but 4 on 4 in the past teams just played for the tie for the most part. Why take a risk of getting 0 points?

 

[PanniniClaus]

When 4 on 4 was first introduced, I said that is was too defensive.. Team will work out their man to man coverages and won't take risks.

3 on 3 has generally gone the same way as any missed chance turns into a chance the other way. If you watched the Leafs and Devils, you saw a 2 on 1 off the faceoff which is the Leafs specialty... they give those up almost every time.

So it was actually back and forth

 

[Divine]

The NHL only has two viable options for fixing the current system. I'm sure there's more options available, but there's only 2 I can see the NHL considering.

3 point regulation wins, all other point distributions stay the same. This way, all games are awarded the same amount of points. It's still somewhat unfair though as it punishes defensive teams.

OR

The end of regulation followed by 5v5 OT for 5 mins. Winning team gets 2 points, losing team gets 0 points - in regulation or OT. If the score is tied after 65 minutes, end it with a tie. This is the most fair system as it follows the current playoff format. Teams may complain losing after 60 minutes should give them a point, but why? You don't get half a win for losing in OT in the playoffs. The point is only awarded to teams who lose based on an arbitrary rule change applied only to regular season games (4v4/3v3/SO).

 

[TT1]

the problem with 4 on 4 is that 5 mins isn't enough to have a winner the majority of the time.. and i doubt the NHLPA would wanna increase it to 10 mins

you could still play clean system hockey in 4 on 4, hockey needs more viewers and that doesn't sell as well, it's what most hockey ppl prefer tho i'd say

 

[PocketNines]

Wait the main board thread that started because the Canucks lost last night is about how it's ridiculous for the teams to even participate in the OT situation, and NOT how Dylan Holloway utterly dominated that game?

 

[GMR]

the problem with 4 on 4 is that 5 mins isn't enough to have a winner the majority of the time.. and i doubt the NHLPA would wanna increase it to 10 mins

Do most 3-on-3 end in a shootout? I haven’t been following the stats.

I don’t understand why games can’t end in a tie if neither team deserves the extra point? This isn’t the playoffs. Casual sports fans don’t care anyway and current hockey fans won’t stop watching if ties are brought back.

 

[Nogatco Rd]

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

Yup. Glad to see the women’s league adopted the 3-2-1 point system

 

[toddkaz]

3 on 3 should be for 10 minutes.

The shutout is trash

 

[TT1]

Do most 3-on-3 end in a shootout? I haven’t been following the stats.

i dunno the exact stat but just by logic a larger portion of 3v3 games end compared to 4v4 which is the aim, the path they wanted to take was to add excitement for the casual viewer

unlike other sports the NHL does experiment quite a bit with rule changes to bring viewers in (they need to), the OT change (both 3v3 + shootout) was basically a gimmicky change in a limited/controlled way to bring more viewers in, it was a way for them to experiment with rule changes outside touching the core of the game (5 on 5 regulation)

there's a balance they have to maintain, stuff like this isn't easy, they have to grow the game without going too far where they start losing purists/make the players mad

 

[olli]

I don’t understand why the nhl hasn’t already adjusted the 3 on 3 rules

 

[ToDavid]

Still infinitely better than the shootout and 3-on-3 OT has cut the proportion of games ending in a shootout by about half.

 

[FlyguyOX]

Deciding games based on gimmick 3-on-3 would almost ruin the sport for me. 3-on-3 sucks.

I agree with the people who suggest the 3-2-1 method. 3 points for regulation win, 2 for ot/so win, 1 for ot loss. It's by far the most fair way to do it by the NHL likes all the teams bunched up in the standings so it will never happen. Every euro league uses this method.



3 on 3 is awesome if you don't actually like hockey. If you grew up with video game hockey or have a short attention span, maybe it's more appealing to you. It's boring, predictable and takes 90% of the tactics out of the game.

To the contrary it is full of chaos and unpredictability and full of tactics.

 

[Mike C]

It sucked as soon as it became about puck possession and safety

is sucked as soon as they instituted it

 

[Gerulaitis]

I strongly believe that 3 on 3 is some kind of a different sport. It's not real hockey and it looks FAKE.

4 on 4 is a better format

 

[Frank Drebin]

There's a reason I consider any and all OT/SO games to be ties and move on from there. It's not legitimate hockey.

They are ties. Thats why both teams get a point.

 

[TT1]

this is just a symptom of a bigger problem that hockey has, they're the least popular of the big mainstream sports and can't come up with a good all star game format or other events outside the game to make the sport exciting and bring more viewers in, so they have to resort to making changes like 3v3 + shootouts in OT

 

[Connor McConnor]

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.

That has always been a thing.

 

[frontsfan2005]

The NHL needs to ditch the loser point. Teams seem content with skating in circles throughout OT and take their chances with the shootout. Either way, you at least are rewarded with a point if you lose.

If you want games to end in regulation time, implement a system with 2 pts for a win, 1 pts for ot/so win and nothing for a loss. Third periods would be much different and teams would be taking risks to win in regulation.

 

[dirtydanglez]

shootout was better

 

[Hennessy]

I saw no reason to change the OT/points system to how it was when ties were a thing, but there's no point arguing that. There's no going back.
And while adding a gimmick (3-on-3) to a gimmick (shootout) seemed at first to be a bad idea, there's no denying it was genuinely exciting when it debuted. Quick action, a sense that anything could happen at any moment.
But that's gone now.

I'm with the OP. Something has to change to recapture that tempo. And if you're not going to have that seat-of-your-pants hockey, you may as well just go back to 4-on-4.