Toggle sidebar

Why in the hell was 3-on-3 in the SF OT?

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Shootouts are the worst way to end a championship/medal round game.
It's no longer the sport that was played for the prior 60+ minutes, just a gimmick to please TV schedulers.

3v3 is at least fast and exciting, even if it is a ghost of the 5v5 team game, but there are still real elements of team hockey being played.

5v5 indefinite OT is the way to go, always. When it comes to an important game in a tournament format, the only way to decide the BEST TEAM is to play the TEAM game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pouchkine and daver
daver said:
Is 20 mins worth of 5 on 5 OT too much to ask? A half decent amount of games are determined in the first OT in the SC playoffs.

Just add that wiggle room into the schedule for the SFs.
Click to expand...

20 minutes with stopped time can be quite a lot of time.
 
1989 said:
Shootouts are the worst way to end a championship/medal round game.
It's no longer the sport that was played the for prior 60+ minutes, just a gimmick to please TV schedulers.

3v3 is at least fast and exciting, even if it is a ghost of the 5v5 team game, but there are still real elements of team hockey being played.

5v5 indefinite OT is the way to go, always. When it comes to an important game in a tournament format, the only way to decide the BEST TEAM is to play the TEAM game.
Click to expand...

Why not have the SFs at separate arenas? This takes care of the logistical issues of having to get SF #2 going at a specific time. Going to cost TSN a million or two in revenue? Tough shit.
 
daver said:
So? Schedule another hour in between the SF games. People can go grab dinner and have a few beers.
Click to expand...

One could argue that the team in the later game (now even later) is less rested for tomorrow.

I like 5 on 5 as much as the next person but I’m not sure it’s realistic for short tournaments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blindpass
daver said:
Why not have the SF at separate arenas? This takes care of the logistics. Going to cost TSN a million or two in revenue? Tough ****.
Click to expand...

Because 10K arenas don't grow in trees. But if you're fine with travelling, let's have Team Canada travel before their elimination games to a different arena instead of staying in the same town.
 
I didn't like seeing 3-on-3 either. The NHL doing it in the regular season you can live with because if they can do anything to eliminate shootouts I am all for it. What a drain that has been on NHL hockey. But I'd rather see 4-on-4 hockey for 5 minutes and then a tie. Yes, a tie. We had them all the way until 2004 and we survived. Even keep the loser point if you want.

But as for international hockey 3-on-3 is just lame. Shootouts are lame too but have 4-on-4 at the very least. I'd prefer 5-on-5, but if they want to finish the games faster then 4-on-4 for 20 minutes then a shootout, if you have to. 3-on-3 is a game where there is just too much room for error.
 
Jussi said:
Because 10K arenas don't grow in trees. But if you're fine with travelling, let's have Team Canada travel before their elimination games to a different arena instead of staying in the same town.
Click to expand...

If they don't get the #1 seed in their group, absolutely they should travel.

Go back to the format of #2 plays #3 on Jan 2; the #3 seed has to travel. The winner stays where they are and plays the #1 seed on Jan 3rd. Then one team travels on Jan 4 for a Jan 5th final.

This brings back some value to finishing #1 in your group.
 
daver said:
If they don't get the #1 seed in their group, absolutely they should travel.

Go back to the format of #2 plays #3 on Jan 2; the #3 seed has to travel. The winner stays where they are and plays the #1 seed on Jan 3rd. Then one team travels on Jan 4 for a Jan 5th final.

This brings back some value to finishing #1 in your group.
Click to expand...

No byes, worst system ever. :thumbd:

No hockey association in any level likes their team to travel in the knock out stage so luckily it isn't happening.
 
NyQuil said:
One could argue that the team in the later game (now even later) is less rested for tomorrow.

I like 5 on 5 as much as the next person but I’m not sure it’s realistic for short tournaments.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it just seems they added something marginally less ridiculous to lower the chances of something ridiculous happening. Would rather see 10 minutes of the way the game is meant to be played.
 
daver said:
Fair enough, it just seems they added something marginally less ridiculous to lower the chances of something ridiculous happening. Would rather see 10 minutes of the way the game is meant to be played.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly what they did.

3 on 3 is drastically going to reduce the odds of a shootout because someone usually makes a mistake.

Even 4 on 4 would be better, but maybe increase the likelihood of a SO substantially as well.

Tough call.
 
Jussi said:
No byes, worst system ever. :thumbd:

No hockey association in any level likes their team to travel in the knock out stage so luckily it isn't happening.
Click to expand...

Ok, just have SFs (no QFs) on Jan. 2 with unlimited OT; the final two days later. f*** trying to max revenues at the expense of determining the best team.
 
daver said:
Ok, just have SFs (no QFs) on Jan. 2 with unlimited OT; the final two days later. **** trying to max revenues at the expense of determining the best team.
Click to expand...

Nope. The tournament is doing fine as it is without some "assclowns at HFBoards" (copyright Bob McKenzie) getting ideas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Statsy
NyQuil said:
That’s exactly what they did.

3 on 3 is drastically going to reduce the odds of a shootout because someone usually makes a mistake.

Even 4 on 4 would be better, but maybe increase the likelihood of a SO substantially as well.

Tough call.
Click to expand...

I am saying if the SO is such an unwanted event, figure it out without adding 3 on 3. At some point viewers need to dictate this rather than IIHF and TSN forcing the issue for revenue purposes.

I was damn close to turning off the TV when I heard it was 3-0n-3.
 
Jussi said:
Nope. The tournament is doing fine as it is without some "assclowns at HFBoards" (copyright Bob McKenzie) getting ideas.
Click to expand...

It's not doing fine when most in this thread hate 3 on 3.

I am already cringing at the thought that the Gold Medal game might go to 3 on 3.
 
Just do 20 minutes of 5v5 and go to shootouts in the knock out rounds. I hate shootouts, but 3v3 is just as much of a gimmick, I've seen way more penalty shots than games played at 3v3 due to the natural course of a game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nifty Willy and VictorLustig
Let's do 5min 4on4 followed by 5min 3on3 followed by 5 min 2on2 followed by 5min 1on1 followed by 5min goalie vs goalie, followed by shootout. :)
 
Anyway, I personally love the 3on3 over shootouts or over 5on5 in OT. I would even be ok having a 3on3 until a goal is scored in a final game.
 
I like watching 3vs3 its fun, but it shouldn't be in playoffs at all. Makes it hard to take the format seriously, at least for me.
 
It should be continuous 5 on 5. Why does it matter if the games go a little long? If you can’t watch the whole game because of that, you can find out the result later. I don’t know why the IIHF is catering to this extremely small subsection. Do a lot of fans turn off OT in the NHL playoffs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom