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

[Hennessy]

The league is never returning to ties, so as much as I'd like that it ain't gonna happen.
And for as gimmicky as the 3-on-3 is, it was at least exciting before teams figured it out.
I mostly wish the league would adopt the 3-point system, but that's not happening, either.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Other - rock, paper, scissors.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Continuous 3 on 3, but with an over and back rule. Once a team gains the blue line, they can not exit to reset. That drives me nuts when players do that.

 

[Crede777]

Limited overtime 3v3 plus a shootout is the most realistic compromise between the players who don't want to play more minutes in regulation games than they have to and the owners who don't want ties. If players were willing to go 10 minutes with 3v3 that would be better than 5 minutes.

No ties or losers getting 0 points in OT. If you had ties or the OT loser getting 0 points, then the strategy in OT would just be keep away - even more than it is now - and it would be extremely boring.

 

[Maverick41]

I honestly would not mind a tie, but if they insist on having a winner I don't care which format they choose as long as the team winning in OT or SO gets fewer points than a team that wins in regulation (e.g. 3 points for regulation win and 2 points for OT/SO win).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Quoting myself from an old thread:

I never understood the objection to ties. Soccer is the most popular sport on the planet, and ties are plentiful. (Usually when this fact is mentioned, someone says that soccer isn't the most popular sport in North America. That's true - but ties didn't seem to stop the NHL from quintupling in size in the span of 30 years).

Here's my radical idea for how points should be awarded:

• Regulation win - 5 points
• Overtime win - 4 points
• Shootout win - 3 points
• Shootout loss - 2 points
• Overtime loss - 1 point
• Regulation loss - 0 points

Here's why the idea makes sense:

• Teams are rewarded more for situations that more closely resemble playoff hockey. The point of the regular season is to determine seeding for the playoffs. A regulation win consists of five-on-five hockey (excluding powerplays obviously), and this gives teams the biggest reward. Overtime (presuming it's three-on-three or four-on-four) isn't quite the same as playoff hockey, but it's pretty close, so a win is only worth a bit less. Shootouts have no place in the playoffs, so a win in that situation is worth still less.
• No ties. Like I said above, I don't have any problem with ties, but if the majority of current/prospective fans do, this eliminates that problem.
• Every game is worth the same number of points (5). It's nonsensical that some games are currently worth more points than others; this system eliminates that issue.
• It incentivizes winning in regulation time. For obvious reasons.

The main objection is a team's record will no longer be directly comparable to previous seasons. (For example, a solid playoff team might end up with 240-250 points, instead of 95-100). My response is teams' records already aren't comparable over time. Obviously, the threshold for a playoff team (or division champion), in a league with 82 games and points for losing in OT/SO, are much higher than the threshold when there were frequent ties and the season was only, say, 70 games long. (EDIT - someone else mentioned instead of doing 5/4/3/2/1, we could do 2.5/2/1.5/1/0.5 pts so the standings more closely resemble what we have today).

 

[AKL]

5 minutes 4v4 then 5 minutes 3v3 then 5 minutes 2v2 then continuous 1v1 until a goal is scored

 

[Wierzbowski426]

Bring back ties, go to 3-1-0 points system.

 

[JoVel]

Continous 5 on 5 is the only one where I feel the game was ended by actually playing hockey, and that obviously wouldn't be a good idea in the regular season. 3 on 3 has been coached to boredom and the shootout is awful, but I don't know if there are any better alternatives either. There are already too many players worn out or injured come playoff time and more OT would just increase that.

What really needs changing is the fact that currently an OT/SO win is as valuable as a regulation win. The last minutes of a tied game would be so much more exciting if NHL adopted the three point system.

 

[Favin]

20 v 20, no penalties, until a goal is scored

(I believe Wrestling has a term for this approach)

 

[dire wolf]

5 minute 4-on-4, followed by a 5 minute 3-on-3.

The 3-on-3 portion would either have a shot clock or a rule that you can't intentionally retreat out of the offensive zone once you have possession (similar to NBA backcourt violation). If you violate that rule, the other team takes over possession from their own zone with the other team cleared out of the zone.

If the game is still tied after that, it ends in a tie.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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

Unless I am totally losing my mind (possible) an OT loss was a loss from the 80s through the lockout when they changed a bunch of stuff.

But my main point was that the league can't do continuous OT or longer periods of overtime in the regular season due to travel and TV requirements. That is why they got rid of the older long regular season overtime sometime in the 40s I think it was.. (at that time it was train and radio but same diff!)

 

[Lshap]

What's the damn problem with ties? It's not the playoffs. During the season, it's all about where you are in the standings, not about beating one individual team. If 60 minutes of legitimate hockey ends in a draw, there was no winner or loser. Both teams gain one point in the standings – exactly what they deserve.

A 5-minute skills contest is entertaining, but it's a cheap W with a cheap extra point for the contest winner. I don't see the need.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

4v4 followed by 3v3. If score remains tied, then it is a tie.

Reduces shootouts as well as 3v3s that generally are the opposite of exciting.

 

[Mrb1p]

5 on 5 hockey for 10 into shootouts.


Or

5 on 5 for 5 minutes
4 on 4 for 4 minutes
3 on 3 for 3 minutes
2 on 2 for 2 minutes
1 on 1 for 1 minute
Goalie on goalie until something happens idk

 

[ricky0034]

I don't think there really is a great option since the only one I actually like(continuous 5 on 5 overtime until someone scores) just isn't practical outside of the Playoffs

I guess i'd go back to the 5 minute 4 on 4 then shootout, 3 on 3 feels like a bit much to be honest

I wouldn't hate 10 minute 4 on 4 then shootout either

i'd take any of the non tie options over ties though, ties are awful


edit: to everyone mentioning Soccer just because a sport is popular doesn't mean it doesn't also have some stupid rules

the world cup final was literally just decided by the Soccer equivalent of a shootout recently, imagine that in game 7 of a Playoff series

 

[Mez]

10 minute 3 on 3 then end in a tie. The addition I want is a rule to keep teams from leaving the ozone with the puck once they enter it.

 

[Fataldogg]

Game concludes with a hardest slap shot competition.

 

[BruinsFan37]

5 on 5 overtime for 5 minutes

If the game is still tied after that, do a shootout but no additional point is awarded. Shootout "wins" only count for tiebreaking purposes

Report as W-L-T-SOW (Win-Loss-Tie-Shootout Win)

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

Continuous 5X5 overtime during the regular season should work...if the coaching and players are onboard. All that's really necessary is a strong aversion for playing marathon games. Coaches and players develop high risk/high reward strategies for overtime that more or less ensure that games end quickly...one way or another.

 

[KapG]

idgaf as long as they get rid of the joke known as the “shootout”

 

[Deno]

Keep it the same.
If it is not broke why try to fix it.
What is broke is how the NHL award points for a win.
Regulation win = 3 points
OT win = 2 points
SO win = 1 point
Loser will get zero points.
This will guarantee that teams will always go for the win in the last 5 mins instead of both team playing to get in OT
Giving point for losing in OT or a SO is just silly.

 

[ElGuapo]

Five minute five on five then tie.

 

[the_fan]

10 minute 3 on 3 then shootout. 90% of the games would end in 10 minute 3 on 3 and shootout won't be needed

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Why is there such a hate for ties?