Toggle sidebar

Beating A Dead Horse Thread 3 on 3 in Overtime during the PLAYOFFS

3 on 3 OT

Good enough to determine who gets into the playoffs

Not good enough to decide who wins in the playoffs

NHL is stupid, although 3 on 3 OT is "exciting" it's dumb that a team can be eliminated from the playoffs because of a 3 on 3 OT loss, but NHL deems it too gimmicky to determine who wins a game 7.

Playoffs are fine as is, regular season game endings need to be worked on. Eliminate the shootout altogether and just do a 3-2-1-0 point system. 5 on 5 OT, 10 minutes, in the reg. season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou Sassole, MrLouniverse, bh53 and 2 others
AvroArrow said:
3 on 3 OT

Good enough to determine who gets into the playoffs

Not good enough to decide who wins in the playoffs

NHL is stupid, although 3 on 3 OT is "exciting" it's dumb that a team can be eliminated from the playoffs because of a 3 on 3 OT loss, but NHL deems it too gimmicky to determine who wins a game 7.

Playoffs are fine as is, regular season game endings need to be worked on. Eliminate the shootout altogether and just do a 3-2-1-0 point system. 5 on 5 OT, 10 minutes, in the reg. season.
Click to expand...

Following this logic, if 3 on 3 is good enough for OT, then why not just play the whole game like that?

We have to remember that 3 on 3 IS a gimmick. The league knows this. These changes were made to eliminate ties (I’d rather just have ties)

There are no ties in the playoffs so no need for gimmicks to avoid them.

Easy, problem solved
 
  • Like
Reactions: Section337, mandiblesofdoom and johnnyonthspot
Rather, they should make it playoffs whenever it’s 3 vs. 3. Does that make sense? No, but neither does OP’s suggestion.

I do wish a 3 vs. 3 league could happen. I think 4 vs. 4 would actually be better, given the skill of modern players, but that’s too similar to nhl.
 
sawchuk1971 said:
I saw that exciting game between the USA and Finland where it went to 3 on 3 in overtime.

Do you think having 3 on 3 OT during the NHL playoffs make it more exciting?
Click to expand...
It was no really exciting. Finland had no gas left in the tank and it was an awful way to watch a game end. It is not 'real' hockey. It is a gimmick just like the shootout. Teams who are in playoff spots because of success in 3 on 3 OT and shootouts rarely make go far in playoff hockey.
For example, the Islanders were third in their division thanks to 16 loser points!
I will agree that it can be exciting. Watching a few Jets or Oilers play 3 on 3 is a treat.
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
[td][/td]
​
 
Absolutely not, it's fine by me to have it in the season, but no reason to change the playoffs.

Then again I'm one of the few that doesn't mind the shootout/3 on 3. I just wish they'd do 10 minutes of 4 on 4 and 10 minutes of 3 on 3 before going to a shootout.
 
Well played

gonna-snap.gif


But no, 3v3 can be fun, it's just too gimmicky for real serious hockey
 
This would be the beginning of the end of the NHL for me. Playoff OT is my favorite part about the sport. It’s the one thing that non-NHL fans love outside of fighting.

It would be one of the dumbest decisions the league could make.

I have no issues with 3v3 in the regular season. I like it, even. Continuous OT in the playoffs is magical. One of a kind in sports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perfect_Drug and Nicko999
This is a hill to die on. Absolutely no 3 on 3 overtime in playoffs for any hockey league. I don't even like it during the regular season - I'd rather they just let games end as ties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom