3 on 3 OT is awful.

[Snatcher Demko]

3-on-3 is terrible hockey because there's no engagement. There's just too much ice and players just hold the puck back and circle around.

Should be at least 4-on-4. It's terrible to watch even when we win.

Or like someone up there posted already, make it a minor to go back across your own blueline either with a pass or possession otherwise. Make the rink smaller.

I never understood the hate for ties. Play hockey in OT 5 on 5 for 5-10 minutes or whatever if no winner is decided it’s a tie. This sport was fine until Bettman ruined it with 2 gimmicks

I think the issue was that teams played for the tie. It was better than this crap though. This is not hockey.

 

[the_fan]

Shot clock or make a rule that you can’t intentionally get out of the zone once you’re in it

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

It's not terrible, it's just teams who suck at it just playing for the shootout still or teams who just have no talent to play it properly. The high end teams with skill usually destroy 3v3. I rather lose a game in that format than 3 breakaways and you can possibly lose to the worst team in the league in a shootout. It's a far better alternative than the shootout which it was brought in for.

As for bringing it out, it's a fine strategy but if you're consistently doing it just to make it to a shootout then yes, it's garbage. If you leave your zone and don't go over the center ice spot for a change or try to isolate tired players, it's fine.

 

[GordonGraham]

I like the OT but if its still a tie after i dont wacth the shoot out

 

[Woodrow]

Just have an over and back rule like the NBA and have teams play the entire 5 minutes, most goals wins.

 

[crowfish]

There is probably some massive flaw with this, but how about the team with the most possession time loses if OT ends in a tie? Incentives scoring chances when you have the puck as fast as possible. But we would probably see some crap meta where both teams just refuse to touch the puck lmao

 

[KCC]

I agree, it sure does suck. Go back to another 5 minute period, and try to break the tie. I really didn't mind the tie game, it's better than watching this gimmick.

Okay there, Grandpa. lol. While I don't care much for 3 on 3, it's better than the shoot out and sure as heck is better than an extra 5 minutes of 5 on 5. Tie's suck. There needs to be a winner. There are no tie's in the MLB and NBA and in the NFL it is incredibly rare.

 

[Chet Manley]

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.


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

3v3 is no more a game situation than clear breakaways. They are both just borderline coin flips to pick a winner.

 

[ijuka]

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

It's not a participation point. It's the regulation point.

Being tied in regulation is actually far more important in terms of playoff projections than winning in overtime. Why would winning in overtime be worth more than it? With a 3-2-1 system, an overtime win is actually worth only 1 point, while a regulation win is worth 3 points. The 1 point is for the tie. So that system favors regulation wins over the current system.

I've run the numbers, and the 3-2-1 system is better at ranking teams than either 2-0, the current system, or the tie system.

That's why in my models, I use 3-2-1 instead of the official system, because the official system sucks ass and is probably the least effective way of ranking the teams based on how well they've performed.

 

[ijuka]

3-on-3 is terrible hockey because there's no engagement. There's just too much ice and players just hold the puck back and circle around.

Should be at least 4-on-4. It's terrible to watch even when we win.

Or like someone up there posted already, make it a minor to go back across your own blueline either with a pass or possession otherwise. Make the rink smaller.



I think the issue was that teams played for the tie. It was better than this crap though. This is not hockey.

teams still play for the tie.

 

[Master P]

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

Agreed.

Also, bring back touch icing.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

its still better than a shootout. but they should so 4 on 4 for 5, 3 on 3 for 5 then if theres no score just have a tie

 

[Aurinko]

its still better than a shootout. but they should so 4 on 4 for 5, 3 on 3 for 5 then if theres no score just have a tie

Not hockey, but better than shootout, rewards faster and more complete players.

 

[Calicaps]

its still better than a shootout. but they should so 4 on 4 for 5, 3 on 3 for 5 then if theres no score just have a tie

I've come to think 3 on 3 is actually worse than the shootout. At least penalty shots are part of a real hockey game. 3 on 3 is just totally made up.

 

[AtlantaHockeyFanatic]

Ties in pro sports are so stupid.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Most teams play for possession alone, which is understandable. For whatever reason, many fans and the league thought ties, 5 on 5 OT, and 4 on 4 OT were too boring. I just accept it as a way of giving out an extra point, much like the shootout, which at least gives us some memorable moves.

 

[MessierII]

Shot clock or make a rule that you can’t intentionally get out of the zone once you’re in it

Gaining the zone isn’t important 3 on 3 with only two guys to tag up. Hemming the other team in their zone isn’t really a great strategy 3 on 3 like it is 5 on 5. You score mostly by transitioning through the neutral zone and creating your own odd man rushes with speed and passing.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Awful product 96% of the time.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Ties in pro sports are so stupid.

The NHL could of folded with all the ties before Bettman right?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

The only thing worse than 3 on 3 then the shootout is the college OT rules

 

[BraveCanadian]

Truth

 

[HabzSauce]

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.

Would be fun, more run and gun hockey. Which also means games will likely be over within first 1-2 minutes.

 

[brentashton]

Like others, make it so if you're going back over the red line to regroup, or to hopefully get a better view of things is the play blown dead and a warning, next time penalty for delay of game..

3 On 3 really does suck. It's becoming the shootout is more entertaining than 3 on 3

I wouldn’t even suggest a warning. Make it a rule, educate the players on it and penalize the offending team if they do it. Becomes a 4 on 3, game soon over.

Just have an over and back rule like the NBA and have teams play the entire 5 minutes, most goals wins.

Except you might still be tied after a full 5 minutes. Has to be sudden death.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

For what it costs to attend a game now, someone is going to f***ing lose.

No ties.

 

[brentashton]

I think ties should be settled with a contest, but not a shoot out contest.

I propose:

The most defensive defenceman on each team gets one chance to put the puck off the glass and out from below their own hash marks. Whoever does it without putting the puck out of play and leaving the puck closest to the opponent’s goal line, wins. If you score you get 4 points. Way more entertaining.

I want to see Jason Strudwick and Ken Daneyko duke it out this way.

/s