News Article: Death To The Shootout Update: Support for 3-on-3 overtime increasing for NHL GMs

[kingsfan]

and why is that a problem ? I think it is a ton more exciting and with the travel by air not being as big of a deal now a days. Most travel is done by private jets if not they can always travel the next day. How many overtime games really go that far very few. Im willing to bet 90% will be done in one period. Maybe if it goes more then 3 ot periods then call it a tie? Why would the pa have a issue with it ? I think your creating more issues then there is.

Of course 90% only go one period. As such, 90% of the time it wouldn't be a problem.

But for those 10 per cent, you are looking at about one hour per period. So if the game ends at 10 pm local time, add in three hours for OT, it's 1:00 a.m. by the time the game ends. Pack up, get dressed, head to the airport, get on the plane, leave, it's likely 4 a.m. If you play again the next night in say Winnipeg, you're likely not even in Winnipeg until 7 a.m.

You'll be missing practice time guaranteed, and likely not getting a good rest either.

It affects the quality of the game, and as I said, there's little chance the PA is going to support it.

Think about it, if playing until someone wins in the regular season was a good idea, wouldn't the owners have done that years ago, before there even was a PA?

A limit needs to be set. Especially in physical sports like hockey. It's likely why football has a limit as well, just they reach it very rarely.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

It's just not sensible, especially since the league is gunning for communism...many of the teams are very comparable talent wise. I love me some hockey...but a double OT+ game potentially a few times a month is a bit much. I like the 3-3 idea

In a normal season there is not alot of many back to back games. Even with the ones that are they are not exactly going from the east coast to the west coast alot of them is like one night playing the duck then sj something like that or being on the east coast playing the rangers then islander or devils. Travel is not really that insane Its not like in the 50s when u had to travel by train. Again your talking maybe once a month if that it goes more then one period.

 

[Reaper45]

Just bring back the ties. Tiesrlikewinsforus.

 

[KingLB]

It's the best the idea of all the ideas.

You're just sore you didn't think of it first.

Damn you're on to me. When did you become so perceptive.

I'd rather just see 10 minutes of 4-on-4, then a shootout. I think that would cut down on the number of shootouts pretty drastically, while still not having ties. Also, we wouldn't have to discuss how gimmicky 3-on-3 would be.

My thoughts.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

Of course 90% only go one period. As such, 90% of the time it wouldn't be a problem.

But for those 10 per cent, you are looking at about one hour per period. So if the game ends at 10 pm local time, add in three hours for OT, it's 1:00 a.m. by the time the game ends. Pack up, get dressed, head to the airport, get on the plane, leave, it's likely 4 a.m. If you play again the next night in say Winnipeg, you're likely not even in Winnipeg until 7 a.m.

You'll be missing practice time guaranteed, and likely not getting a good rest either.

It affects the quality of the game, and as I said, there's little chance the PA is going to support it.

Think about it, if playing until someone wins in the regular season was a good idea, wouldn't the owners have done that years ago, before there even was a PA?

A limit needs to be set. Especially in physical sports like hockey. It's likely why football has a limit as well, just they reach it very rarely.

Well first of all out of that 10% i would say another 90% of the games would finish before the 2nd period would end. So we re talking maybe 1 % of the games going more then 2 ots.
ok I looked at the kings schedule this year lets look at the back to back games for a min
at min to winnipeg not more then a hour by plane
at coyates to sj another hour and half flight
at nyi to the nj hourish bus ride if that
at la to ducks
at mont to toronto 1ish
at ottawa to chicago 1ish
at chicago to dallas 2ish
at boston columbus 1pm boston start
at sj to coyates
at colorao to calgary
at edmonton to calgary 1hour
at philly to washington
la to sj

Im looking thru this and the longest trip i see chicago to dallas which i think is maybe 2 hours. I would also like to say this season is more compact then a normal season do to the olymipics with the extra 2 -3 weeks we could eliminate alot more of the back to back games.
Practice time really thats up to the coaches but i dont think teams need to practice as much as you do one or two times a month optional isnt going to hurt a team.

Quality of the game seriously i think they would suport it if the league would also up the number of roster spots from 23 to 24 maybe 25 for resting players in this situation. If ot was really this bad for them as u think they would also be against it in the playoffs. How can they be for it there and not in reg season.

You bring up why was it not done before well travel back in the day was by train and they had things called town curfews for games. In this day and age travel is alot easier then it was back then. Things called private planes make leaving alot easier then it was before you can leave whenever u want. Also the league wants to pander to the fans that like things like shootout there are a fair amount of them. Not the hardcore older ones like myself but alot of fans do, If u need proof of that look no further then having it in the rookie game no matter what the score is. A limit is fine make it 2 periods hell maybe even just one full period as i figure that would take alot of the ties out. I think playing it to a finish would make it alot more exciting and worth it for fans to go home with a clear winner and providing more entertainment imo .

 

[kingsfan]

If you think playing 3 OT periods in the regular season is a sensible idea, go ahead. I'm not going to argue back and forth over something which has zero chance of ever occuring.

The NHL has not once suggested ever doing this, and considering it is done in the playoffs, you know the idea has crossed their mind. The logistics of doing it don't fit, the NHLPA would likely be completely against it for the injury risk factor alone and arena operators hate long overtimes as is considering how busy arena are and how often they have to undergo transformation, sometimes multiple times a day.

But if you want to continue to cling to the pipe dream of longwinded overtimes in the regular season, go ahead.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

If you think playing 3 OT periods in the regular season is a sensible idea, go ahead. I'm not going to argue back and forth over something which has zero chance of ever occuring.

The NHL has not once suggested ever doing this, and considering it is done in the playoffs, you know the idea has crossed their mind. The logistics of doing it don't fit, the NHLPA would likely be completely against it for the injury risk factor alone and arena operators hate long overtimes as is considering how busy arena are and how often they have to undergo transformation, sometimes multiple times a day.

But if you want to continue to cling to the pipe dream of longwinded overtimes in the regular season, go ahead.

If you want to get rid of the ties then this is the best way to do it. Imo gimmicks of 4 on 4 3 on 3 isnt the way hockey was ment to be played. Why not make the net bigger ? make the size of the rink bigger? hockey to me is a 5 on 5 sport not to be taken to less players in ot what other sport does this none its not done cause it makes little sence. As far as this being done or not it has a much of as chance of happening as 3 on 3. If that happening i see alot of players getting injury due to fatigue in the ots. All it will take is one star getting hurt and this 3 on 3 would stop. As far as the nhl suggesting it or not How do u know they havent Have you been to every gm meeting that the nhl has ever had ? ot would mean more concessions stand sales they wouldnt have any issues as long as they can make more money. As stated before most ot games would end in the first period which is not longwinded games some would proberly end faster then some shootouts i ve seen. the 3 period of ots would be a rarety and for this fan would be extremly exciting. Other major sports play to a end baseball comes to mind some times a game can go 16 innings + They don't stop them games for a tie. ( I admit not as much travelling but still point made.

again the nhl pa wouldnt stop it if they added more players to a team. 30 more jobs would be created.

 

[kingsfan]

All I'm saying is the NHL hasn't publicly supported the idea. As I said in the very post you quoted, "you know the idea has crossed their mind." The fact they haven't ever come out and suggested the idea shows they don't support it as a whole. The fact shootouts, four-on-four and loser points were deemed a better idea speaks volumes.

Unless I'm missing something, OT has never been more than five minutes since the league expanded from the original six teams.

And adding a player per team? It's not that simple. Are you fitting that under the cap, or you expanding the cap? If you're expanding the cap, you'll be raising the cap floor too. Raising the cap ceiling and floor can have huge impacts on teams.

Things aren't so simple as you imply. If they were, this would have been done already. Playing five-on-five is the natural solution, so the fact it hasn't been implimented after all these years and so many changes to OT over the decades implies there is a real concern with it.

 

[KingCanadain1976]

All I'm saying is the NHL hasn't publicly supported the idea. As I said in the very post you quoted, "you know the idea has crossed their mind." The fact they haven't ever come out and suggested the idea shows they don't support it as a whole. The fact shootouts, four-on-four and loser points were deemed a better idea speaks volumes.

Unless I'm missing something, OT has never been more than five minutes since the league expanded from the original six teams.

And adding a player per team? It's not that simple. Are you fitting that under the cap, or you expanding the cap? If you're expanding the cap, you'll be raising the cap floor too. Raising the cap ceiling and floor can have huge impacts on teams.

Things aren't so simple as you imply. If they were, this would have been done already. Playing five-on-five is the natural solution, so the fact it hasn't been implimented after all these years and so many changes to OT over the decades implies there is a real concern with it.

The reason that it wasnt consider imo is the league thinks the shootout and loser points is more in tune for the nhl public. Lets face it defensive hockey doesn't sell. Goals are sexy and shootouts are the nhl version of sex sorta as they garente a quicker ending in most cases. The nhl thinks this is better for tv and as much as i hate to say it it is better for most of the younger american public as they don't have the patience level (ok maybe im overstating the general public of the states but im close. )

As i stated before there was a issue due to travel commitment in the original 6 Most of the travel was done by train. There was also things like curfews for town I belive you couldnt have any game go past midnight (at least i remember being told this by my uncle when i was a kid) due to issues with churches or something like that Trains we also public transportation back then so they had to stick to schedules. Now a days we dont have to relie as much on public planes as there are private ones they can charter.

If you add a player the cap and floor would go up thats nothing to figure out as it raises and this year fall every year not a big detail to work out to me. With 6 outdoor games this year you know its going up for sure next year.

3on 3 would also be hard imo to get the nhl to agree to As its cutting down on the number of actual players on the ice. Its not hockey to me then its more of a pond game. sorry just the way i feel .

 

[kingsholygrail]

The last thing you wanna do is bring back ties. Nobody likes ties.

 

[kingsfan]

The reason that it wasnt consider imo is the league thinks the shootout and loser points is more in tune for the nhl public. Lets face it defensive hockey doesn't sell. Goals are sexy and shootouts are the nhl version of sex sorta as they garente a quicker ending in most cases. The nhl thinks this is better for tv and as much as i hate to say it it is better for most of the younger american public as they don't have the patience level (ok maybe im overstating the general public of the states but im close. )

And that explains the lack of four-on-four, OT points and shootouts for the first 90 years of hockey how?

As i stated before there was a issue due to travel commitment in the original 6 Most of the travel was done by train. There was also things like curfews for town I belive you couldnt have any game go past midnight (at least i remember being told this by my uncle when i was a kid) due to issues with churches or something like that Trains we also public transportation back then so they had to stick to schedules.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=30998

Top two games are from the 30's. Assuming they started at 7 pm local time, they would have lasted WAY past midnight.

If you add a player the cap and floor would go up thats nothing to figure out as it raises and this year fall every year not a big detail to work out to me. With 6 outdoor games this year you know its going up for sure next year.

I'm not referring to 'figuring it out.' I'm referring to the fact there are teams, like the Islanders for example, trying to keep costs down as is. As if they are going to support adding another player to the payroll. NHLPA aside, you needed I believe 24 of 30 teams to support the CBA last time, do you think 25 of 30 teams will approve a change adding another player to their payroll? I don't. Not to mention most low payroll teams won't support any increase to the cap since it only hurts them to give their opponents more cap space.

3on 3 would also be hard imo to get the nhl to agree to As its cutting down on the number of actual players on the ice. Its not hockey to me then its more of a pond game. sorry just the way i feel .

LMAO. Really? The NHL approved the shootout, but approving 3-on-3 is a no go? Three-on-three is immensely better than the shootout, 'pond hockey' or not.

 

[HYORI 1963]

why not just play ot till someone scores like in the playoffs? that way no looser point and no shootouts and a winner ever time

Players Association would never go for that. Too much wear and tear on the players in what already is a long season. Besides, the sudden death OT is what makes the playoffs that much more interesting.

On a side note, I can't say I agree with those who want the ties back. Ties are so boring and unsatisfying. Heck, why don't we just bring back the red line while we're at it.

 

[Vamos Rafa]

Players Association would never go for that. Too much wear and tear on the players in what already is a long season. Besides, the sudden death OT is what makes the playoffs that much more interesting.

On a side note, I can't say I agree with those who want the ties back. Ties are so boring and unsatisfying. Heck, why don't we just bring back the red line while we're at it.

Red line? It's still there and it's used to determine if a cleared puck is an icing. If you mean bringing back the two-line pass, I agree. I hated that rule. Probably the most pointless rule in sports. It clogged the flow of the game.

 

[The Tikkanen]

I'd like to see it up to the coach of the home team. If the 2 teams are tied at the end of regulation the coach can pick between a shootout or 5 mins of 3x3.

 

[Ollie Weeks]

Everything went to hell when people started needing a winner and a loser in a scenario which didn't necessarily have a winner and a loser.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

Everything went to hell when people started needing a winner and a loser in a scenario which didn't necessarily have a winner and a loser.

Says Who?

This isn't preschool soccer where we don't want to hurt people's feelings. Sports are about winning.
Did they have ties when a gladiator was fighting a lion?

 

[mbar]

The last thing you wanna do is bring back ties. Nobody likes ties.

I like ties. It's a fairer reflection of what happened in a game then giving points to teams that win shootout gimmicks.

I'm open to more overtime or 3v3 overtime but I will chose a tie over a shootout every day of the week.

If we keep shootouts at the very least we need to fix the point system so they are not worth the same as a real win. 3-2-1-0 point system is the way to go.

 

[mbar]

Says Who?

This isn't preschool soccer where we don't want to hurt people's feelings. Sports are about winning.
Did they have ties when a gladiator was fighting a lion?

ahhh the pre-school soccer argument. Love that one. As if hockey players are too tough for ties. Well it worked fine for a hundred odd years but whatever.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

With the amount of head injuries in the game and the lack of excitement the shootout is now creating, I'd like to see games resolved the old fashioned way:

Bring integrity back to the game and lets see those soft hands on display!

 

[Buddy The Elf]

If ties were considered a loss, **** would get real interesting real quick. How is that for an outside of the bun idea?

 

[Captain Mittens*]

ahhh the pre-school soccer argument. Love that one. As if hockey players are too tough for ties. Well it worked fine for a hundred odd years but whatever.

Other things that "worked fine" for hundreds of years
Slavery
Feudalism
Laissez-faire economics
Thinking the world was flat
The Caste system
Thinking the earth was the center of the solar system and universe

Do you see a pattern here?


The shootout was introduced because there were too many ties, fans don't want them and it was hurting the bottom line

 

[onlyalad]

The reason for the shootout over endless overtime is so TV can schedule ads and other programs. NBC doesnt want the NHL cutting into their golf or college football. They want a winner and not a tie because Joe Basketball fan thinks nothing happens all game long and then no winner is lame. And since they dont sell ads for OT they are losing money and viewers

 

[Ollie Weeks]

Says Who?

This isn't preschool soccer where we don't want to hurt people's feelings. Sports are about winning.
Did they have ties when a gladiator was fighting a lion?

I'm the last person who'd care about hurt feelings, believe me. I'm just not bothered by the odd tie because eventual winners are determined over the course of the season, and more importantly the playoffs. Without throwing dozens of extra arbitrary points into the standings, victory is still rewarded.

If two teams go at each other and you can't determine a winner, then call it as it is. Why can't the gladiator and lion both succumb to their wounds from time to time? Don't water it down with a teeball tournament so people can thump chests and feel more secure about what they saw. That's the part of the "shootout=at least there is a winner" idea that drives me up the wall.

As for the 3v3 idea, I do like that concept much more than the shootout, because at least it makes the points awarded for winning feel less arbitrary. At the very least its a decent compromise between ties and what we have now.

 

[Captain Mittens*]

I'm the last person who'd care about hurt feelings, believe me. I'm just not bothered by the odd tie because eventual winners are determined over the course of the season, and more importantly the playoffs. Without throwing dozens of extra arbitrary points into the standings, victory is still rewarded.

If two teams go at each other and you can't determine a winner, then call it as it is. Why can't the gladiator and lion both succumb to their wounds from time to time? Don't water it down with a teeball tournament so people can thump chests and feel more secure about what they saw. That's the part of the "shootout=at least there is a winner" idea that drives me up the wall.

As for the 3v3 idea, I do like that concept much more than the shootout, because at least it makes the points awarded for winning feel less arbitrary. At the very least its a decent compromise between ties and what we have now.

Let me ask it this way then:
How many people in the history of the world while on their way to a sporting event said "Man, I really hope the game ends in a tie tonight!" ?

 

[Vamos Rafa]

Other things that "worked fine" for hundreds of years
Slavery
Feudalism
Laissez-faire economics
Thinking the world was flat
The Caste system
Thinking the earth was the center of the solar system and universe

Do you see a pattern here?


The shootout was introduced because there were too many ties, fans don't want them and it was hurting the bottom line

This post is boss.