The End Of The Shootout?

[Sea Bass Neely]

What about a 5-on-5 or 6-on-6 OT period with no goalies? Now that could prove to be exciting haha.

Lol that is an interesting proposition but will never happen, nor should it. Maybe 7-on-7 with no goalies would make things a bit more interesting... it would allow the OT period to last longer than [what 5-on-5 or 6-on-6 would result in] an average of 2 minutes.

Four forwards, three defenseman, zero goaltenders. Talk about a frenzy, it would be an interesting experiment in a vacuum... but that's a bit TOO out of the box.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

Lol that is an interesting proposition but will never happen, nor should it. Maybe 7-on-7 with no goalies would make things a bit more interesting... it would allow the OT period to last longer than [what 5-on-5 or 6-on-6 would result in] an average of 2 minutes.

Four forwards, three defenseman, zero goaltenders. Talk about a frenzy, it would be an interesting experiment in a vacuum... but that's a bit TOO out of the box.

yeah i definitely wasn't serious about it and teams would hate it b/c they'd have a bunch of guys trying to play goalie without goalie equipment and it would just be a total clusterfrack, but it would be pretty fun to see.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

yeah i definitely wasn't serious about it and teams would hate it b/c they'd have a bunch of guys trying to play goalie without goalie equipment and it would just be a total clusterfrack, but it would be pretty fun to see.

The very concept, although it would never be adopted, is interesting just in theory anyhow. Talk about a mad rush to get the puck... and OT possibly ending at any moment once someone can get to (or a bit past) the red line.

That would be an OT you cannot take your eyes off of for one second. But you are right it would be a giant clusterf**k and too many players would just be minding the net without adequate protection. Recipe for injuries, definitely.

 

[ReggieMoto]

Zero "loser" points is the key. Then add no shoot-out and you have a winner.

 

[BB624]

This is what I am in favor one of these 3 point systems
All with 5 min OT

Old System
2 points for Win
1 for tie
0 points for any loss

Soccer System
3 points for Win
1 point for tie
0 points any loss

Or 3 points awarded max per game
3 points for Regulation Win
2 points for OT win
1 point for OT Loss or Draw
0 points for Reg Loss

 

[Kimota]

Winner,we have a winner.

I have never seen an established sport tinker with it's rules, minor and major, the way the NHL does. Sometimes they remind me of a teenage girl with "issues" who needs a new crisis to be fixed every few months.

Leave the game alone, at least for a few years too see if the tweaks they made work.

BTW I hate the shootout and would love to see it gone, games shouldn't be decided on an all star skills competition.

Good post. That's a memo that should be sent to the NHL and all the GMs and owners.

 

[Fossy21]

Washington had 5 regular or OT wins and 4 shootout wins earlier, that's... yeah.

 

[northeastern]

4v5 for 5 then 3v3 until we get a winne. 3v3 will be run and gun it'll end quick. after 10 min 3v3 call it a tie or something like that..

 

[ElkabombKid9]

Being totally Fictitious here, and this may be more of a novelty than the SO even... But a mini 1 on1 type thing would be insane and probably more entertaining for the non die hard than a SO . I did it once in bantam or peewees I think... Anyway it's 5 on 5 to start 5 minutes total. After a minute a guy from each side gets off, so now it's 4-4 next minute 3-3 and so on until it's 1-1 or obviously someone scores. I know that's nutty and the players probably would even hate it but imagine if it got down to like 2-2. Or 1-1 Crosby and malkin vs bergeron and eriksson or something. That would be nuts.

 

[BobbyAwe]

At least shoot-outs are better than tie games. It's hard to believe the league had tie games for so many years, THAT (tie-games) is the dumbest thing ever. What kind of sport is that?

"Honey, how was the game?"

"Okay".

"Who won?"

"Oh, NOBODY, dear."

 

[Therick67]

Zero "loser" points is the key. Then add no shoot-out and you have a winner.

Agreed. I'd have a 10 minute 4 on 4 OT. If after the OT it's still tied, I'd award zero points. Your only rewarding a win.

 

[Kelly23]

rotate powerplays then 5 on 3's, 1 of each for each team if nobody scores, home team has choice of top or bottom of inning baseball style extra inning rules.

If somehow no goals then this
end game 6v2 one minute rotations twice each no goalie for power play team net goals for the 4 minutes wins

if still no winner then sudden death Penalty shots, again baseball extra innings style home team is locked into what they chose for power plays.

thats 8 minutes of OT, you could even start it 4v4 2 minute sudden death to bump it to 10 minutes

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

Zero "loser" points is the key. Then add no shoot-out and you have a winner.

That's wrong.

There is no loser point in hockey. There is "false winner" points though.

A shootout loss ain't a real loss so it's normal that you get a point.

A shoothout win ain't a real win but teams are getting the same number of points as a real win. THAT is the problem. Not that teams get a point because they "lose" a mickey mouse skill competition ending...

Many have gotten it right: Get rid of the shootout or else, go with:

3pts regulation win
2pts OT/Shootout win
1pt OT/Shootout loss
0pt regulation loss

 

[SerenityRick]

At least shoot-outs are better than tie games. It's hard to believe the league had tie games for so many years, THAT (tie-games) is the dumbest thing ever. What kind of sport is that?

"Honey, how was the game?"

"Okay".

"Who won?"

"Oh, NOBODY, dear."

I had zero problems with tie games. If neither team is able to put the game away after 10 minutes of 4on4 where the result is zero points awarded then neither team deserves points.

This would encourage all out, offensive strategy in the OT. the extra 5 minutes would all but ensure a victor. I would bet you wouldn't see very many ties.. and if there was a tie, the OT would probably have been extremely entertaining which is all that matters.

 

[BobbyAwe]

I had zero problems with tie games. If neither team is able to put the game away after 10 minutes of 4on4 where the result is zero points awarded then neither team deserves points.

This would encourage all out, offensive strategy in the OT. the extra 5 minutes would all but ensure a victor. I would bet you wouldn't see very many ties.. and if there was a tie, the OT would probably have been extremely entertaining which is all that matters.

I enjoy 4 on 4 to the point where i would like to see 60 minutes of it as the normal game. I feel it's a better game and more entertaining, plus more scoring so there wouldn't be as many ties there either. But of course, that will never happen, so i'm all for your 10 minute OT 4on4 idea...i just still think if it does end in a tie they need the shootout because i just see tie games as being so anticlimactic and disapointing to both teams and fans.

 

[ReggieMoto]

Zero "loser" points is the key. Then add no shoot-out and you have a winner.

That's wrong.

There is no loser point in hockey. There is "false winner" points though.

A shootout loss ain't a real loss so it's normal that you get a point.

A shoothout win ain't a real win but teams are getting the same number of points as a real win. THAT is the problem. Not that teams get a point because they "lose" a mickey mouse skill competition ending...

Many have gotten it right: Get rid of the shootout or else, go with:

3pts regulation win
2pts OT/Shootout win
1pt OT/Shootout loss
0pt regulation loss

Say what you want -- believe what you want -- but that is "old tyme hockey" talking, as was mentioned earlier. To my way of thinking, if you don't win, and a loss in overtime is a loss not an almost win, why award a point? Uh, because it's always been done that way?

Take the silly OT loss point away, reduce the winner point to one point, and everything is fine. Even ending in a tie -- i.e. no winner therefore no points awarded -- works fine, actually better I'll argue. Then you won't hear any of that "at least we won a point" talk which makes me a little nuts because they are satisfied they lost in OT. And you'll see teams fully engaged at the end of regulation and even more so during OT. I have halfway begun thinking that teams play not to lose during OT rather than to win because they'd rather take their chances with their shooters one-on-one against the goalie.

I think it's an idea with merit and I wish they would discuss it.

 

[BklyNBruiN]

The end of the shootout? Good, finally.

 

[BklyNBruiN]

That's wrong.

There is no loser point in hockey. There is "false winner" points though.

A shootout loss ain't a real loss so it's normal that you get a point.

A shoothout win ain't a real win but teams are getting the same number of points as a real win. THAT is the problem. Not that teams get a point because they "lose" a mickey mouse skill competition ending...

Many have gotten it right: Get rid of the shootout or else, go with:

3pts regulation win
2pts OT/Shootout win
1pt OT/Shootout loss
0pt regulation loss

I like it minus the 3pts regulation win.

 

[RaskIsABrickWall]

Love the shootout. But it should be worth less points if you win in a SO