3 on 3 OT is awful.

[Perfect_Drug]

Who would've thought the Oilers would thrive in an all-offence, defence-optional game situation?

Personally not a fan of ties or shootouts to decide hockey games - at least 3v3 is representative of hockey and not just a total microcosm.

3-2-1 points isn't a guarantee to change the motivation of any given team especially if one or both are out of the playoff picture. Shot clock is probably the broadest stroke to implement but maybe the most radical change. I prefer 10 minute 3v3 with illegal zone re-entry the most.

5 point system makes the most mathematic sense given all of the outcome scenarios:

5 points - Reg win
4 points - OT win
3 points - SO win
2 points - SO loss
1 point - OT loss


But as many others pointed out, when we overlay these types of point systems with past standings, there is very minimal (or no) position changes. All the same teams make the playoffs, and the draft order remains mostly intact.


I think it was maybe 1 team every few years might have made the playoffs, and other teams might have drafted 1st overall, but given how flawed the current 2 point system seems, it still gets it right.

 

[eviohh26]

3v3 Is honestly terrible.

 

[Chet Manley]

It lands somewhere between a coin flip to throwing darts to send everyone home with a conclusion. It's not really meant to be serious. I try to keep that in mind when thoughts of 3v3 OT is awful creep up. Sidenote; vote for 3-2-1.

 

[ForumNamePending]

Time for the NHL to go to 2 on 2 OT! There is no way the fun could be coached out of that, right?

I REALLY dislike the idea of things like shot clocks, "over and back" rules, and introducing an entirely new set of rules that only apply to regular season overtime. Introducing all sorts of gimmicks just to avoid the shootout feels like a pyrrhic victory.

Basically the two teams could not determine a winner by playing hockey, so now they are going to play a another sport that is a bit like hockey, but mostly different, to determine a winner!

 

[Chet Manley]

5 point system makes the most mathematic sense given all of the outcome scenarios:

5 points - Reg win
4 points - OT win
3 points - SO win
2 points - SO loss
1 point - OT loss


But as many others pointed out, when we overlay these types of point systems with past standings, there is very minimal (or no) position changes. All the same teams make the playoffs, and the draft order remains mostly intact.


I think it was maybe 1 team every few years might have made the playoffs, and other teams might have drafted 1st overall, but given how flawed the current 2 point system seems, it still gets it right.

SO and 3v3 aren't really dissimilar enough for needing 5 points over 3.

 

[Javaman]

Okay, only read half the thread, so I apologize if I'm repeating what someone else might have said.

But:

These kinds of discussions are useless unless they are first filtered through the golden rule of the NHL: What maximizes revenue?

If 3v3 OT maximizes revenue because it keeps more teams in the hunt for a playoff position in a gate-driven league, then it's going to keep happening.

Doesn't matter how shitty knowledgeable hockey fans think 3v3 OT is. The only thing that will change the minds of the powers-that-be if there's is a more profitable option presented.

Hockey is a sport.

The NHL is a business.

The NHL is not hockey.

 

[1989]

5 point system makes the most mathematic sense given all of the outcome scenarios:

5 points - Reg win
4 points - OT win
3 points - SO win
2 points - SO loss
1 point - OT loss


But as many others pointed out, when we overlay these types of point systems with past standings, there is very minimal (or no) position changes. All the same teams make the playoffs, and the draft order remains mostly intact.


I think it was maybe 1 team every few years might have made the playoffs, and other teams might have drafted 1st overall, but given how flawed the current 2 point system seems, it still gets it right.

Again, it doesn't incentivize teams who are at the bottom to play for anything or even provide entertainment. Only a rule implementation which affects the game at the moment of play would. Even if players understand they have to play for the point(s), they would rather play safe unless forced to take a risk - and no player wants to be the one to cause a losing situation such as an illegal zone re-entry or shot clock violation.

SO and 3v3 aren't really dissimilar enough for needing 5 points over 3.

A continuous game situation that involves multiple players isn't much different from a penalty shot carousel? Interesting take, friend.

 

[Kamus]

Have the overtime winner get 3 points. Lol

 

[rojac]

I get not liking it and I understand what people mean about it not resembling the game closely enough. But the fact of the matter is they won 41 contests and didn't win 41 contests. By definition they had a .500 record.
I'm talking about winning percentage, of curse.

I'm not sure that winning percentage has much of a meaning in the NHL, though. I'd argue that th. e goal of a NHL team during the reguar season is to earn points. Yes, winning a game earns more points than losing in OT/SO but the latter still contributes to the team's goal for the regular season. Winning percentage is merely a curiosity stat about how well a team does at doing the thing that earns them the most points, while Points percentage actually measures how well a team does at accomplishing the team's regualr season goal, whch is to collect points.

 

[Gerulaitis]

5 point system makes the most mathematic sense given all of the outcome scenarios:

5 points - Reg win
4 points - OT win
3 points - SO win
2 points - SO loss
1 point - OT loss


But as many others pointed out, when we overlay these types of point systems with past standings, there is very minimal (or no) position changes. All the same teams make the playoffs, and the draft order remains mostly intact.


I think it was maybe 1 team every few years might have made the playoffs, and other teams might have drafted 1st overall, but given how flawed the current 2 point system seems, it still gets it right.

Let me develop the idea:


Point system with code names

Regulation win - 99 points (aka a Wayne)

OT win - 91 points (a Sergei)

SO win - 88 points (an Eric)

SO loss - 66 points (a Mario)

OT loss - 33 points (a Patrick)

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Just make carrying the puck back across your own blue line a two-minute minor. Problem solved.

 

[Tralfamadore]

I take it Van just lost in overtime then?

 

[JonathnTaylorTavares]

I find 3 on 3 OT exciting

 

[HighAndTight]

4 on 4 till someone wins. You don't wanna play a long game, don't be bad. Or be really early bad lol.

 

[rojac]

I"ve never understood the appeal of allowing ties after OT. If you're going to allow games to end in a tie, why not just end it after 60 minutes and let everyone get on their way 10-15 minutes earlier.

 

[Dust]

Make it so that every team has to ice the players with the lowest TOI during regulation first, before the stars can play. Let's see Patrick Maroon or Corey Perry score a couple of OT winners off their face to really get the excitement back in the game. Bonus points as fans can go get popcorn while they lug the puck up the ice and not miss a thing.

 

[biturbo19]

A sort of "shot clock" or "over and back" rule would help...but honestly, the reality is, coaches would just figure out a way to coach the life out of that as well. Or more realistically, you'd just have all sorts of stoppages trying to officiate that. Are you going to assign a 2 minute penalty for that to make it have actual consequence? Because then you're just going to get a whole metric ton of games settled by an overtime powerplay on a stupid ticky tacky shot clock violation or accidentally losing the zone. That's not really much better imo.


The real solution is to just stop screwing around with Overtime "gimmicks". Make it regular hockey. Bring back ties. The shootout novelty has absolutely worn off as well.

 

[Casper The Soy Ghost]

Implementing a shot clock sounds like an awful idea, so let's hope it doesn't come to that.

I'd rather see a similar NBA rule that prevents teams from bringing the puck back into their own end.

This.

 

[Metroid]

5 on 5 for 10 mins and then a tie is way better than some gimmick shit made to appease to "nuFans" be99man hockey.

Sure prob some exceptions of old guard liking 3 on 3 and or shootouts, but it's garbage, always has been, always will be... shootouts even worse.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

The people who want ties back just don't get it.

 

[Grinner]

Leave 3 on 3 to the spectacle of the all- star game. Otherwise, it has no place on NHL hockey.

 

[McFlash97]

I'm on the they should play 3 in 3 until there's a goal. Take the shootout right out of the game.