What is your preferred option if the score is tied after 60 mins?

[Breakfast of Champs]

Whatever it is, scrap the pts system and go to 3-2-1 or just simply wins and losses. Regulation wins can be used as a tie breaker for teams tied in wins, but the current structure is/has been so stupid even a child can point out how bad it is

 

[Breakfast of Champs]

Continuous OT will never happen in regular season because of scheduling for TV and flights. It isn't even realistic to consider any of those options.

I think the old format was better.. OT then tie.

2 total points are up for grabs in the game win, lose or tie.

Except the old format still had a chance for a 3 pt game because you still got a pt for losing in OT.

I agree though, keep the amount of pts rewarded per game consistent, whether it's 3-2-1 or just flat out W-L records

 

[PuckG]

I love 3 on 3. Keep it going until someone scores. No matter what, it’s not bound to last too long and the entertainment value is great (probably more so as an Oiler fan).

 

[TruePowerSlave]

There should definitely be no additional minutes no matter what. The regular season is already way too long and players would get even more gassed.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Wasn't the regular season OT period 20 minutes at some point or am I misremembering? Seems like they could stand to make 3 on 3 10 minutes without it being too taxing for the players. I have no great love for the SO but have even less for the tie.

I think making it 4 on 4 would eliminate the annoying backtracking of possession out of the attacking zone but I get why they wouldn't want it. The point is to try and end the game while it still resembles the team sport of hockey.

 

[LaMasquerade]

I kind of like the current way. Both 3-vs-3 and shootout are interesting to me..

What I'd like to change is how points are awarded. 3 points for regular win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss, 0 for regular loss. (The way it is done in Liiga nowadays).

 

[93LEAFS]

either end in a tie at end of regulation or end in a tie after 5 minutes of 5v5 minutes. The most popular sport in the world often ends in ties, and while uncommon, it happens in the most popular sport in North America too at the professional level. No need to gimmick the game to expedite the result in the regular season.

Wasn't the regular season OT period 20 minutes at some point or am I misremembering? Seems like they could stand to make 3 on 3 10 minutes without it being too taxing for the players. I have no great love for the SO but have even less for the tie.

I think making it 4 on 4 would eliminate the annoying backtracking of possession out of the attacking zone but I get why they wouldn't want it. The point is to try and end the game while it still resembles the team sport of hockey.

Pretty sure it went from 60 minute tie to 60 minutes+5 minutes of 5v5 to a tie.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I would like to see 10 minute 3v3 and if no one scores the game ends in a tie.

 

[Seras]

I don't get the hate for ties.

3 on 3 / shootouts, neither of these are hockey.

Might as well have games decided by who can jump the highest

 

[Duder54]

I don’t really care how the game ends as long as every game is worth an equal amount of total points. That some games are worth 3 points and others only 2 is a joke.

 

[bobholly39]

1. Ties are horrible. The goal of a competitive sport is to crown a victor, not declare a "tie". Anything but ties. Can you imagine a formula 1 race "hey, you guys both crossed the finish line around the same time, TIE!" - so dumb.

2. Continuous 5vs5 OTs are great, but I think it's too much for regular season. First, it diminishes how special playoff OT is. Next, it can get a bit silly, with regular season games going to 3 or 4 OT or more...it's too much. And I agree with poster who said it creates a dilemma for TV rights/scheduling and flights, could be hard to manage

3. I also think 5 mins of OT is way too short. Even at 3vs3, 5 minutes goes super fast

So taking all that into account, I voted 10mins of 3vs3 then shootout, but I'd probably prefer going 20 mins of 3v3 OT. The idea is to lessen the amount of shootouts, but not eliminate them, so not sure if 10 or 20mins is best.

Honestly - I don't mind the shootout. It's fun, different, and unlike soccer (huge nets, its stupid) it's always actually a pretty big question mark if a player will score or not.

The two biggest problems with shootouts in the NHL is how points are done (most agree, NHL should switch to 3 points for regular win, etc), and the fact that shootouts are too common. Make the OT longer, it fixes that.

 

[severian]

Continuous 3 in 3. I’d love to see it tried at the end of preseason games. What percentage of games do you think would even make it to 10 mins?

 

[severian]

I don’t really care how the game ends as long as every game is worth an equal amount of total points. That some games are worth 3 points and others only 2 is a joke.

I agree. Obviously the league is thinking that the loser point creates parity but it’s the loser point that makes 5-6-7 point gaps in the standings look insurmountable. Going to a 3-2-1-0 system would seemingly allow teams that look like they are out of it to make up ground quick. Plus you’d see funky stuff like teams just out of the playoffs late in the season pulling their goalies in tie games to try and get the extra points.

 

[LokiDog]

10 min 4 on 4, then either tie or shootout. Ideally continuous 10 min 4 on 4 periods, but that's unlikely

I agree. 3on3 was cool at first but has become awful hockey to watch now that teams just rag the puck back to their own to regroup. 4 on 4 for 10 minutes (since continuous is too much in an 82 game season where games could conceivably go 2-3+ OTs with a back to back the next day) and then just call it a tie.

 

[wetcoast]

I don't like that the total number of points on offer changes if the game goes to OT. If you are going to have 2 points for a win, then it should either end in a tie or the OT loser should get 0 points. My preference is the former. If a win would be worth worth 3 points, the 2 points for an OT win and 1 point for an OT loss makes sense. OT should always be 5 on 5. Shootouts suck.

Came here to say this, especially the part in bold but I also understand why the NHL won't ever go back.

 

[obZen]

5 minutes 4v4
5 minutes 3v3
Shootout

Get rid of the points system altogether. Wins and losses only.

It will never happen though.

 

[bobholly39]

Here's what it should be, ideally, taking everything into account:

Regulation win - 3 points.
OT win - 2 points
shootout win - 1 point
loss - 0 point. (doesn't matter if regular loss, OT, or shootout).

3vs3 OT - 10, or 20 mins (the goal is to have most games end in OT, with some shootouts).
If no victor in OT - shootout

The idea would be to motivate teams in regulation, and in OT, to play for the victory, as opposed to avoid losing....big difference in the standings between 3, 2 1 and 0 points. I think with the extra motivation of winning in OT (2 points for OT win vs 1 for shootout and 0 for loss) - 10 minutes of 3vs3 OT may be enough, instead of 20mins.

I really hope NHL implements this change soon.

 

[Stephen Gionta]

1. Ties are horrible. The goal of a competitive sport is to crown a victor, not declare a "tie". Anything but ties. Can you imagine a formula 1 race "hey, you guys both crossed the finish line around the same time, TIE!" - so dumb.

2. Continuous 5vs5 OTs are great, but I think it's too much for regular season. First, it diminishes how special playoff OT is. Next, it can get a bit silly, with regular season games going to 3 or 4 OT or more...it's too much. And I agree with poster who said it creates a dilemma for TV rights/scheduling and flights, could be hard to manage

3. I also think 5 mins of OT is way too short. Even at 3vs3, 5 minutes goes super fast

So taking all that into account, I voted 10mins of 3vs3 then shootout, but I'd probably prefer going 20 mins of 3v3 OT. The idea is to lessen the amount of shootouts, but not eliminate them, so not sure if 10 or 20mins is best.

Honestly - I don't mind the shootout. It's fun, different, and unlike soccer (huge nets, its stupid) it's always actually a pretty big question mark if a player will score or not.

The two biggest problems with shootouts in the NHL is how points are done (most agree, NHL should switch to 3 points for regular win, etc), and the fact that shootouts are too common. Make the OT longer, it fixes that.

roughly 65% of all 5 minute 3 on 3 overtimes are decided before the game gets to a shootout. So I would think adding an additional 5 minutes would make up for that remaining 35% most of the time. We would rarely, rarely see shootouts if it was a 10 minute 3 on 3 overtime.

 

[McPoyle]

The biggest issue with the whole OT set up is that certain games are worth 2 points and others worth 3. League really needs to adapt a 3-2-1-0 points system. Incentivize regulation W's.

RW = 3 points
OTW = 2 points
OTL = 1 point
RL = 0 points

 

[severian]

Here's what it should be, ideally, taking everything into account:

Regulation win - 3 points.
OT win - 2 points
shootout win - 1 point
loss - 0 point. (doesn't matter if regular loss, OT, or shootout).

3vs3 OT - 10, or 20 mins (the goal is to have most games end in OT, with some shootouts).
If no victor in OT - shootout

The idea would be to motivate teams in regulation, and in OT, to play for the victory, as opposed to avoid losing....big difference in the standings between 3, 2 1 and 0 points. I think with the extra motivation of winning in OT (2 points for OT win vs 1 for shootout and 0 for loss) - 10 minutes of 3vs3 OT may be enough, instead of 20mins.

I really hope NHL implements this change soon.

No because that still skews the fact that games are of unequal value. Pick a point value, be it 2 or 3, and every game should carry equal weight in the standings.

 

[Stephen Gionta]

I think the NHL should move to a 10 minute 3 on 3 OT, then shootout.
And I think the points system should be a 3-2-1-0 system. 3 points awarded in every game.

3 points - Regulation win
2 points - OT/Shootout win
1 point - OT/Shootout loss
0 points - Regulation loss.

In the current state of the NHL, if a team is 8 points back of a playoff spot with 3 games remaining on their schedule, they are mathematically eliminated. If the NHL would move to a 3-2-1-0 system, it would keep teams in the playoff race until the very end. You could go on a 5 game win streak and make up 15 points in the standings as compared to 10 points. That is a massive difference.

The result of a 3-2-1-0 would make the gap between 1st place and 32nd place much much larger, but it would make playoff races WAY more interesting. Which is what the NHL wants.

 

[Jerzey Devil]

0-0 outcomes are the dumbest things in sports. It’s almost like the game was never played.

I voted 3 vs 3 until someone scores.

Shootout is like pancakes. All exciting at first but by the end you’re f’n sick of them. - Mitch Hedberg

 

[bobholly39]

No because that still skews the fact that games are of unequal value. Pick a point value, be it 2 or 3, and every game should carry equal weight in the standings.

Why does that matter? In what way does it skew things if not all games are of equal value? I think it makes the standings a bit more unpredictable, which isn't a bad thing.

To me the biggest issue is that teams have no motivation to win in regulation, or even OT, vs shootout. If they "play it safe", they get a loser point anyways.

Going with 0 points for loss, and most points for regulation win (3) then OT (2) then shootout (1) will have teams constantly trying to win games. Taking more risks, more entertaining to watch, etc.

If we instead do 3 points for regulation win, 2 for OT/shootout win, and 1 for OT/shootout loss, teams will likely still play it safe in the end, to at least make it to OT and get 1 guaranteed point. It's still better then what we have today, but I think I prefer 0 points for any type of loss.

 

[TMLegend]

One 20 minute 5v5 period, then end in a tie.

Having a gimmick deciding games just doesn't do it for me.

 

[The Podium]

5 minute 5v5 OT, if no winner it ends in a tie