| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| sharksfan44 |
Posted - 11/21/2009 : 19:08:17
hey guys, i was just watching the leaf/cap game on HNIC and an interesting topic came up between the two commentators jim hughson and glenn healey as we were waiting for the shootout to start. Glenn healey brought up that in the British Columbia hockey leaugue, instead of going to the shootout, they go into a 3 on 3 overtime period after the 4 on 4 overtime period.
I think this would be a great idea for the nhl. as much as i do like the shootout, i think this would be better. as jim hughson said perfectly, it would at least let a hockey play decide the game instead of break aways.
i think the 3 on 3 would be just as exciting as the shootout, if not more. If this doesn't resolve anything then it's simply a tie.
wut do u guys think? |
| 31 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Mikey Boy |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:08:07
you can't beat or replace the excitment of sudden death hockey! and only true, passionate hockey fans can appreciate that!
MP |
| Mikey Boy |
Posted - 12/13/2009 : 14:05:55
3 on 3, 4 on 4 or 5 on 5...dont care...i would rather see it then a shootout anyday!
MP |
| Hugh G. Rection |
Posted - 12/12/2009 : 06:39:16
. The shootout is too popular with fans (especially americans and casual hockey fans) to be eliminated. If old traditionalists don't like it- tough, its not going anywhere.
The issue actually is the three-point games, unfortunately. The fact that all games are not worth equal points means that certain teams get the shaft for no reason. Teams do not push for the win with sub 5 mins left in the third with as much gusto, especially on the road, since they can wait for the guaranteed point and go from there.
Soccer had to deal with a similar problem back in the day. Teams on the road would basically 'trap' the entire game and wait for a draw and go for the win at home. Since draws were worth one point and wins 2, you had a decent shot at playoffs/championships/etc if you drawed half the time and won the other half.
Their solution? Make wins worth 3 points, ties one. Now if you sat back and tied every game you would finish well behind teams that won one/lost one. Hockey needs to emulate this, and implement 3 points for a regulation win. Since the 5 min OT/shootout remains, award each team one point at the start of OT and the winning team gets an extra point. Now every regular season game gives out 3 points, and teams have a huge incentive to take risks for the win near the end of a close game.
There, fixed for you all. |
| K73 |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 12:34:52
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And the issue is not the 3 point game, it's rewarding losing. Furthermore, it's the perception of parity that is not there.
Today, with the current system there are only 7 teams in the league that do not have at least 1/2 their potential points making it appear that most of the teams are playing .500 hockey or more. However, there are 16 teams with more loses than wins.
How does that work???
The Dallas Stars are 13-16 and are 13th in the NHL???
Tampa Bay are 11-17, 6 Games under .500 through 28 games and they are in a playoff spot???
Vancouver is tied for 5th in the league in wins, 6th in goals for and 8th in goals against any they are out of the playoffs?? Why?? Because when they lose it's in regulation time and not in Overtime like Tampa???
A win is a win and and lose is a lose. Period. Rewarding losing is the stupiding thing in the NHL. As far as I am aware, they are the ONLY pro sports league in the world that rewards losing. As much as I do enjoy watching a shoot out, I would rather not see a single shoot out than see a team rewarded for losing.
i know what you mean, im just saying if the league insists on rewarding overtime losses they should also reward regulation wins. more incentive to finish the game in 60 minutes = less overtime points being handed out.
EDIT: to use one of your examples, Vancouver would see a huge jump in the standings (something like 5th or 6th in the west) thanks to a large amount of regulation wins. |
| Odin |
Posted - 12/10/2009 : 10:11:41
Beans, your point about fading rivalries is true.
I think one of the other things that has contributed to that is when they went from divisional playoff formats to the conference playoff format.
When all you are fighting with is four other teams to make the playoffs, it makes those games much more intense, not to mention important. When you are fighting 14 other teams for a playoff spot, it waters down the divisional rivalries, making those games less important and therefore they lose intensity. |
| n/a |
Posted - 12/08/2009 : 04:53:30
Tie games were not boring; the trap system combined with clutch and grab hockey was.
Shootouts demean the real wins.
What I mean is, to get 2 points for a hard fought 3-2 win with solid defensive play in the third and your goalie having to come up with many big saves to preserve the win in the last 5 minutes . . . how does that compare to two teams skating to a tie, then one team having a third liner who specialises in shootouts win the game for you?
Shootouts are an invented add-on of hockey, a gimmick. And it's a pretty effective one, as it does create some excitement.
But to me, it's like making a tied basketball game have a slam-dunk contest to decide the extra point . . . or maybe a better example is a free throw contest. Like having a tied game after 9 innings of baseball end in a home run contest with your own pitcher throwing the ball at you. Or for football, having a the kickers have three goes at it from the 50 yard line.
The only game I can think of that does anything close to this is soccer . . . and to compare soccer to hockey in terms of length of game needed to produce goals would be ludicrous, no? At any rate, I do like watching the world cup, and I hate the shootouts they have to decide games as well - just as unfair.
I like ties!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/07/2009 : 18:19:09
Tie games definately are the way to go. As Odin said, the tie really keeps rivalries going. Really, there are no rivalries today compared to the 70's, 80's, and 90's. There isn't anything to keep rilvaries going and one of the reasons is the lack of ties.
And the issue is not the 3 point game, it's rewarding losing. Furthermore, it's the perception of parity that is not there.
Today, with the current system there are only 7 teams in the league that do not have at least 1/2 their potential points making it appear that most of the teams are playing .500 hockey or more. However, there are 16 teams with more loses than wins.
How does that work???
The Dallas Stars are 13-16 and are 13th in the NHL???
Tampa Bay are 11-17, 6 Games under .500 through 28 games and they are in a playoff spot???
Vancouver is tied for 5th in the league in wins, 6th in goals for and 8th in goals against any they are out of the playoffs?? Why?? Because when they lose it's in regulation time and not in Overtime like Tampa???
A win is a win and and lose is a lose. Period. Rewarding losing is the stupiding thing in the NHL. As far as I am aware, they are the ONLY pro sports league in the world that rewards losing. As much as I do enjoy watching a shoot out, I would rather not see a single shoot out than see a team rewarded for losing. |
| K73 |
Posted - 12/07/2009 : 16:26:28
I said it in another thread but it was kind of off topic to ill say it again: if they're going to give out 3 points for overtime games, they should give out 3 points for every game. winning in regulation grants 3 points, otherwise it stays the same.
Also, I watch a hockey game to see somebody win, not to see them skate to a tie. Tie game's are NOT the way to go. |
| Odin |
Posted - 12/07/2009 : 09:25:36
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6012
having the game ending in a tie is what made the NHL boring a few years ago.
I dont like dishing out all these points either but i never want to go to a game and see it end in a tie.
Toss the 1 point and give the winner 2.
I couldn't disagree with this statement more. I completely agree with what T-Bar said.
I think ties, especially between rivals, make the anticipation for the next game between the two much higher. It wasn't ties that made for boring hockey, it was clutch and grab, trapping hockey that made for boring hockey.
And yes, those 3 point games have got to go. |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 09:26:14
ya but with a 5 minute overtime there isnt alot of chances for teams to win compared to the old 20 min overtime. I think leave it the way it is only make it 5 shooters instead of 3.
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 08:20:24
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9206
the problem with taking away the point in a tie is that things will be the way they were in the past where teams played overtime not to lose the point instead of playing hard to win the 2 points
And that doesn't happen today??? Only 35% of games that go to overtime don't go to a shoot out. The first three minutes of overtime are generally an attempt to win. The last 2 minutes are playing to not allow that goal and take your chances in the shoot out.
|
| Guest9206 |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 08:18:08
the problem with taking away the point in a tie is that things will be the way they were in the past where teams played overtime not to lose the point instead of playing hard to win the 2 points |
| Guest9494 |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 07:52:54
be pretty cool if they did it like minor tournament finals and by that i mean 4on4 3on3 2on2 1on1 each for two minutes not allowing a player to be used more then once. Thats where real coaching would come into effect |
| Guest6821 |
Posted - 12/06/2009 : 07:17:11
make it like boxing if one team out plays the different team then they win that one period and thats one point then add up the 2 period and 3 period then the team with the most points WINS . |
| n/a |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 11:33:08
How about neither?
A tie is a tie is one point for each team. Let's take back the Canadian game and play it the way it was always meant to be played!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest4564 |
Posted - 12/04/2009 : 08:55:25
mite be nice but after 3-3 shout out idk |
| sharksfan44 |
Posted - 11/24/2009 : 12:11:32
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
How about 2 points for the winner, 1 point each if it goes to a shoot out, and still have the shoot out.
Then, only use the shoot out wins for a tie break if two teams are tied at the end of the season in points and in head to head match up.
The games ending in a tie DID NOT make the game boring. Watching players hook, slash, trip, cross check and obstruct rather than playing proper positional defense is what made the game boring.
A tie game is as exciting, if not more exciting as any other game. And it make me throw up in my mouth thinking that a team could outplay another team for 59 minutes, get scored on, skate to a tie at the end of the overtime and lose the extra point because of a deke on a shoot out.
exactly. this exact thing almost happened last night but it didnt. the leafs outshot the islanders 61 to 20 or so, and thank god it didnt go to a shootout cuz if they would have lost in a shootout that would have been wrong. atleast they lost in ot.
another example of the shootout screwing a team over, how bout back in 06 when ryan smyth was traded to the islanders and they won their final game in a shootout and because of that they knocked out toronto from 8th in the conference. if there was no shootout, the islanders would not have gotten the extra point and would have came in 9th and the leafs would have made the playoffs |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 20:16:40
How about 2 points for the winner, 1 point each if it goes to a shoot out, and still have the shoot out.
Then, only use the shoot out wins for a tie break if two teams are tied at the end of the season in points and in head to head match up.
The games ending in a tie DID NOT make the game boring. Watching players hook, slash, trip, cross check and obstruct rather than playing proper positional defense is what made the game boring.
A tie game is as exciting, if not more exciting as any other game. And it make me throw up in my mouth thinking that a team could outplay another team for 59 minutes, get scored on, skate to a tie at the end of the overtime and lose the extra point because of a deke on a shoot out. |
| sharksfan44 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 18:55:31
quote:
Originally posted by tbar
For me I would like to see 5 min. 4-4 and is still tied 1 point ea. If somebody scores in OT 2 points and none to the loser. I hate all these extra points getting handed out.
same here. i think if u lose, u lose. you shouldnt get a point for a loss, no matter how u lose. if you think about it (i know this would never happen) a team could never win a game all year, but could still make the playoffs. if u go to overtime every game, ur guaranteed 82 points. unlikley, but its a possibility. |
| Guest0977 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 15:33:57
How about
2 pts to the winner
1 pt to the loser only if it goes to the shoot out. That way they would have earned the tie like pre-shoot days. This is a compromise between the old scoring system and the new. |
| Guest6012 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 15:03:54
having the game ending in a tie is what made the NHL boring a few years ago.
I dont like dishing out all these points either but i never want to go to a game and see it end in a tie.
Toss the 1 point and give the winner 2.
|
| tbar |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 14:39:39
For me I would like to see 5 min. 4-4 and is still tied 1 point ea. If somebody scores in OT 2 points and none to the loser. I hate all these extra points getting handed out. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 13:52:30
I've often wondered why they chose 3 in the first place Matt. I too think it'd be better with 5. The fewer there are, the fewer the number of players who are deciding the game. Therefore, 5 would work better for me. I know there's the time factor, but really, how much longer is this gonna take to have 4 more shots? Not much at all... |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 10:51:20
To at least make the shootout more competitve and strategic, make it 5 rounds not 3.
This way there can be a bit more of a gameplan in terms of when and where guys are shooting, and will also add more excitment to it as well. I think we are stuck with the shootout for the foreseeable future so why not do more with it at least?
The shootout is over before all 6 guys even get to shoot most of the time, at least make it so we can see more guys in the shootout than we usually do.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 11/22/2009 : 21:47:02
you can take the goalie out at any time that wouldnt require a rule change. Technically you can play the entire game 6 on 5
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem |
| Guest4098 |
Posted - 11/22/2009 : 17:52:44
i like the idea of you start with five players per side and you take one off every 3 minutes and each team decides who to take off ie goalie
So you could have 4 skates on three + goalie |
| Tiller33 |
Posted - 11/22/2009 : 12:28:57
I agree both are just as gimmicky and 3 0n 3 would turn into a breakaway situation anyway so id stick with the shoot out just because there is less injury possibilities for players, no sense in getting hurt in a side show act.
There's a lot of dirty old occ's around thats the problem |
| 50brent |
Posted - 11/22/2009 : 12:19:15
ya this is an niteresting topic but i dont see this ever happening in the nhl, it would be exciting to see but as alex116 said it would make the game kind of feel like a joke, so i think i would stick with the shootout, the shootout seems to have a thing where everbody likes it because its the most exciting time during a hockey game which is the breakaway. and i think it shows a competive nature more than 3 on 3 would. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/22/2009 : 12:09:34
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
I dunno, i think that 3 on 3 basically would become a battle of 2 on 1's and that's just as "gimmicky" as shootouts really?
Exactly. 3 on 3 is for play grounds and back yard ponds. Not the NHL.
Yet, so is the shoot out, so I guess what ever. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 11/22/2009 : 03:16:36
I dunno, i think that 3 on 3 basically would become a battle of 2 on 1's and that's just as "gimmicky" as shootouts really? |
| Alex |
Posted - 11/21/2009 : 20:00:15
Love the idea in theory.
From the little NHL 3-on-3 we get to watch (All Star Game is the only time I can think of), it is buckets of fun! However, as I say with other significant rule changes, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." The NHL is doing great. Fans want to see games go to shootout, I know I do. It's gold.
If it was 2005 and this idea was brought up I'd say implement it. Given where we are, I'd say let things stay as they are. Solid idea nonetheless |
