As it was mentioned earlier, with schedules the way they are with back-to-backs and 3 games in four nights... I don't think that extending the overtime period is an option. MAYBE to ten minutes, but I think that means no shootout (which is an option for ME, but not for the NHL and many of its fans).
The reason I mentioned scrapping the overtime period, is that it seems to me that games are so rarely decided in that five minutes. NOW, I could be totally WRONG about that (and someone feel free to dig up the percentages of how many games are decided in OT as opposed to the SO). But most of the time, it takes a PP in that time in order for the game to actually be won or lost during the 4-on-4. In other words - I'm not sure it's worth it.
I agree that any OT period should not go beyond 10 minutes. People that question why the regular season rules differ AT ALL from playoff game rules are ignoring the wear-and-tear on the players... just how taxing a 2OT, 3OT game is for a team that may well have to play the following night.
I personally don't mind there being different rules -- with regard to ties -- for the regular season as opposed to the playoffs, when everything is on the line. It is better for player safety, too.
The idea thrown around about "if a tie remains after the first 5 minute OT period, play 3-on-3 for the remainder of the OT period; whether that be another 5 minutes (then shootout), or an indefinite 3-on-3 stand-off until one team finally scores" is certainly an interesting proposition.
Not sure if i agree with the whole 3-on-3 thing, but it IS an intriguing alternative. For those who want the shootout completely removed, it may indeed be the best alternative since 99% of the time it won't take TOO long before one team scores and ends it in a sudden-death OT.
The biggest problem i have with the 3-on-3 is that it gives a HUGE advantage to teams with quicker top-6 forward lineups. Just a couple ultra-fast speedsters on one team can/would ensure that the said team is a lock to win at least 75% of the games that go to OT.
To me, that is even less fair than the current shootout rules are for a team with an abundance of "shootout specialists". Sure the said team would have an advantage... but anything can happen when it is one-on-one, player vs. goalie (regardless of statistics). OTOH, high-speed teams WILL absolutely dominate in 3-on-3 overtime periods.
The Bruins -- the way they currently play under Julien and with their current roster -- would be facing a significant disadvantage in the [hypothetical] 3-on-3 OT's despite the fact that they are a high quality playoff-caliber team.
You are right about the current 5 minute OT period practically being a formality. Almost all games tied in regulation are ultimately decided in the shootout.
Right now, there's almost no point in even having an OT period, given that the NHL is intent on keeping the shootout. I would support an initiative to have a 4-on-4, 10-minute OT period... i think this would result in fewer games decided by shootouts and speed disparities would not "tip the ice" nearly as much as a 3-on-3 OT period would.
But no more than 10 minutes, whether 5-on-5 or 4-on-4, for the OT period. Then it is either ruled a tie or it goes to shootout. I'm not in love with the shootout, but i do prefer it to tie games.
I really liked your proposal -- which rightfully assumed that the shootout is here to stay, the NHL likes the added drama and star exposure it brings to their wider fanbase -- for a new points system.
Regulation win = 3 points
OT/Shootout win = 2 points
OT/Shootout loss = 1 "consolation" point, for forcing an OT.
Keep in mind... that one point for an OT/Shootout loss would have less meaning and less impact on the standings if the points system you proposed were implemented.
