Beating A Dead Horse Thread: 3 on 3 in overtime during the playoffs

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Don’t even put this out into the universe please. Playoff OT rules for hockey should never be changed. It’s the best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BB79
but NHL deems it too gimmicky to determine who wins a game 7.
That's not why though, it's because of stuff like teams are scheduled on back to backs during the regular season often. The players have negotiated into the CBA restrictions like no travel on the day you play and a 9 hour layover between arrival at the hotel and when you have to report to the game, which becomes difficult to promise if you don't have mostly consistent end times to games. Or a lot of arenas are multipurpose and have close turnaround times, which gunks up if you have an extra nhl game.

And to add on, the quality of hockey is trash because the guys are so exhausted. It's fun in the playoffs, where every goal matters, but a Tuesday night game in January against the resident basement dweller? No thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: byrath
I could go for 4 on 4 only for 2nd OT and beyond. I do think 4 on 4 is a better balance for keeping some of the game structure but opening things up. I could even see 4 on 4 being better modern day hockey as it would reduce some of the blocked shots and the endless passing around the perimeter when a team in the lead resorts to turtle hockey.
 
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?
That's because young players did not learn how to "properly" play 3 on 3 OT hockey, when they do it won't be exciting anymore.
 
I saw in the football section where the OP suggested they make NFL d-men count 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi before rushing.
 
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.
I prefer shootouts to 3-on-3.
 
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.

That's because 82 games where you have no ceiling for how long they are is too much. And each game in the regular season means less. It's not that complicated.
 

Ad

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad