3 on 3 OT is awful.

[the_fan]

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 like it is 5 on 5. You score mostly by transitioning through the neutral zone and creating your own odd man rusted with speed and passing.

There really isn’t a solution to fix 3 on 3. It is what it is and it results in like 70% of the games ending in OT which was the NHL’s goal. Just leave it as is I guess

 

[Commander Clueless]

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 the idea of keeping the 2 point system, but both teams get 1 after regulation. OT and SO award only a tiebreaker stat in the form of "ROW".

Still fun to see your team "win", but less impact in the standings. Keeps the point totals low-ish.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Not really more gimmicky than penalty kicks in soccer.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

I havent stuck around to watch a shootout in years, and almost 100% of the 3v3 I’ve watched this season have been very boring. Might stop watching that too. Free up my evening. Nod thoughtfully at the standings in April. Checked those for the first time today, too.

 

[Evilhomer]

I like the idea of most goals at 3-3 wins. It's already a gimmick, and a completely stupid one at that, so make it even more ridiculous by incentivizing teams to pile on the goals.

 

[PaulD]

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.

Nothing new here.
Gimmick game.
Child's play. Recess hockey.

 

[Mike C]

Not really more gimmicky than penalty kicks in soccer.

What's that old thing about 2 wrongs???

 

[x Tame Impala]

Ties are stupid. Counterintuitive to the purpose of sports. Save it for boring soccer, the worst of the big 5 sports

 

[Ciao]

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.

I don't care if it's legitimate or not. There's nothing worse than a 2-2 this on a Tuesday night in February. Without O/T the game slows down to a crawl in the second period and never picks up. It's unwatchable.

Now, with overtime, at least you know someone is going to score before the game is over. And with 5 minutes of 3 on 3, it won't take forever. It gives you a reason to stay up and watch the end of the game instead of just going to bed early.

 

[Maruk moustache]

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

Agreed, completely, along with just making sure, one way or another, that there are always the same number of standings points involved in every game.

It is real hard for me to understand why anyone would like a situation where the two teams in a game ever collectively get an extra bonus point, to the detriment of all the teams not involved in that game. I will never understand how that was even considered to be an option.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

The 3-2-1 point system is way better than what we have now and would solve many of these issues

 

[mattihp]

I don't think it's horrible, it just shouldn't decide hockey games. Have some kids or alumni play 3-on-3 in breaks

 

[Sniper99]

Ties are stupid. Counterintuitive to the purpose of sports. Save it for boring soccer, the worst of the big 5 sports

Amen I couldnt care less for the "waaa waa its too gimmicky" crowd. Its fun as hell to watch, only bad part is the skating back to your blueline or further shit, go back over center, lose possession. Ive been lucky in all the games i've watched goto O.T. Majority of them end in O.T. no shootout. Lots of mistakes happen on a bad pass or a 2 on 1 gets stopped and the other team goes the other way and scores.

Exciting as hell even if that team loses. Dont like it, go watch televised poker and Phil Helmuth act like a baby after getting River'd

 

[Lshap]

I don't care if it's legitimate or not. There's nothing worse than a 2-2 this on a Tuesday night in February. Without O/T the game slows down to a crawl in the second period and never picks up. It's unwatchable.

Now, with overtime, at least you know someone is going to score before the game is over. And with 5 minutes of 3 on 3, it won't take forever. It gives you a reason to stay up and watch the end of the game instead of just going to bed early.

Guess what: it's the opposite. OT doesn't solve ties – it creates MORE of them. Since implementing today's OT/SO, more games end in a tie after 60 minutes than they did before. If you thought teams were playing for a tie back in the day, it happens more often today with OT/SO.

I compared the final standings in the 1990s versus the recent standings. Back then, before implementing OT/SO, teams had as few as 6 or 7 ties per season and as many as 16-18. Overall average was about 10 ties per team, per season.

Today, the average has increased to about 15/16 tie games after 60, with many teams playing over 20 tie games per season. In 2023/24, Boston and Montreal both had 26 games that ended tied after 60.

Bottom line: OT/SO forces a (small "w") win onto tie games. But it comes at a cost. Teams have become more likely to slow down the 60-minute game and settle for a tie, knowing they can get a second point afterwards playing 3-on-3.

When we had ties, there was only one way to get 2 points: Win during 60 minutes of real hockey. Teams pushed harder and fewer games ended in a tie, because there was no second chance for 2 points.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I’d be fine with a 3-2-1 point system as well as making it an icing if the team with possession crosses back behind the red line with the puck.

The pace should be intense and highlight individual player skills more. I’d also be fine with 4v4 hockey then a shootout.

Ties are simply unsatisfactory for American sports. I don’t want to pay $500 for me and a guest to go watch a freaking tie game.