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

[Tkachuk Norris]

Keep it the same. Overtime is taxing on the best players.

Regulation wins should be worth 3 points though.

 

[JTToilinginToronto]

5 min 5-on-5 then ends in a tie

 

[Aaaarrgghh]

The

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.

Looking back, I just realised that the points system made perfect sense until 1999. Go figure.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

Absolutely hate the gimmicky 3 on 3. I voted 4 on 4 for 5 mins then end in a shootout. But ONLY if they award 3 points for every game.
3 for regulation win
2 for OT or shootout win
1 for OT or shootout loss

 

[Captain97]

10 minutes 3v3 then tie but also change to a 3 point system or remove the lower point either way I'd be happy.

If it's 3 point system and the game ends in a tie you each get 1 and the 3rd point goes to the abyss. If it ends in OT the winning team gets the extra point.

If it's 2 point system If you win in regulation or OT you get both points lower gets nothing. Tie you each get 1 point.

 

[Johno]

I'd take 5 minutes of 4 on 4. Then 5 minutes of 3 on 3. And finally shootout. Games need to end in reasonable time.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Continuous 3v3, easily. There's no way a 3v3 game goes more than maybe 10-15 minutes, which is negligibly different from the time it takes to have a shootout, so that should have everybody back on the road at about the same time. Meanwhile you get a wide-open finish with a "hockey" goal at the end, and potential for some wild saves along the way. I don't hate the shootout, but 3v3 is a better product.

4v4 would be a strong choice, except that it could go a lot longer and that results in logistical issues for TV, travel, arena turnover, etc.

 

[ole ole]

Do you like the 3 on 3? Do you like ties? Do you like shootouts? Let's put it to a poll!

In my personal opinion, I think it should be a 10 minute 3 on 3, then go to a shootout if nobody scores.

No gimmicks --10 min, 5 on 5 no score =tie.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Miss 4 on 4 ot

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

Go old school soccer. Full match replay two days later.

 

[Puck Dogg]

I think the current system is not great but it's the best we've got. Continuous OT playoff style would be terrible for the players because the schedule is already tight and those 10-20 minutes to score in a close game add up.

 

[Homesick]

3 on 3 for 5 minutes then the shootout. 2 points for the winner and zero for the loser. No more participation medals ffs

 

[majormajor]

10 mins 3v3, no shootouts. Ties are preferred to shootouts.

 

[Lshap]

If your team needs OT to win, they weren't the better team. If neither team wins after a full game played under regular rules, there is no winner or loser. Both teams earn a point for the tie, as they always did.

Winning a gimmicky OT contest shouldn't be worth 2 points. It's not a real "W". If people absolutely demand a resolution, keep the gimmicky OT contest, but don't add the extra point to the totals. Instead, the OT winner banks the extra point in a separate OT Win column, which can be used as a tiebreaker in the standings.

 

[BlueBaron]

I don't mind ties. Reducing players to 4v4 3v3 is gimmicky to me. Teams don't really practice them much so it's a bit of a crapshoot where you kind of hope your guys are good at it.

That said if another solution builds the game I can live with it.