Why go after the poster for posing this question. It was used to decide a world championship and you never know what the NHL will do to attract viewers in the sunbelt!
Wait, you thought the 3on3 overtime between USA and Finland was exciting? How?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?
We have to remember that 3 on 3 IS a gimmick. The league knows this. These changes were made to eliminate ties
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?
Wrong. The shootout was introduced to eliminate ties. Then they introduced 3v3 to try to get more games decided without having to go to the shootout. Which, ironically, in a roundabout way is the NHL admitting that shootouts are a lame gimmick. Their solution was just another gimmick.
Agree…someone should close this thread right away!!!No. Close the thread.
It’s not at all…super painful to watch these days as they simply play not to give up possession. Even if it was exciting, keep that crap out of the playoffsI don’t think 3-on-3 is even all that exciting really
And the worst thread of all time goes too...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?
Soccer shootouts are the same as a hockey shootout. Yes, they’re now ingrained in the sport even to the point of a World Cup final game.Exactly.
And I still think its better than a shootout, which the biggest sports event in the world has.
Teams don't get loser points from winning in otTeams 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!