| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 10:19:47
Do you still think that the shootout is the right way to decide a professional hockey game in north america? (feel free to explain your rationale) |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Axey |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 20:14:28
The reason they got rid of ties is because it leaves the crowd displeased, true fans are pleased but attracting new fans is hard when someone whos first game they are ever at ends in a tie, compared to the excitement of OT and a shootout. I for one have no problems with it and we should stop altering the game and start mastering it the way it is. All of these changes are starting to get annoying.
Chicago Blackhawks GM
Jesus didn't tap. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 07:53:38
If I'm not mistaken, the shootout was introduced to expand the fan base of the NHL, not to skew the rankings. As was posted earlier, the shootout has not yet caused even a ripple. For those who find the shootout repellant, redundant, or obsequious to the leagues moneymakers, maybe add some more weight to the shootout winning goalscorer in your next pool. Believe me, it makes it that much more fun to watch.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 16:04:22
I think the shoot out is fine for entertainment value, but I don't think the team who wins the shoot out should get the extra point.
I think that if two teams skate through a 5 minute OT and they are still tied, each team gets one point. I still say have the shoot out, but have it as a tie breaker at the end of the year.
If two teams have the same amount of point and same amount of wins at the end of the year, and have the same record against each other, then go to the shoot out results to decide the standings.
While we are at it, let's stop this stupid win your division automatic top three in the conference garbage. |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 15:12:26
Personally, I would just like to see 10 minutes of 4 on 4 play. By the time they scrape the ice and decide on who is going to shoot, they could have finished a 10 minute overtime period.
The part that erks me about the shootout is the fact that it has nothing to do with team play. Hockey is a team sport played with systems and players who are pieces to the puzzle. The defenceman who worked his ass off all night to make sure the other team didn't score all of a sudden has no say in the outcome of the game. If a team is built with grinders and role players they may win games by playing well as a 5 man unit, but in a shootout its usually the team who has the best individuals who win. Its a team game.
Also, if it shouldn't be in the playoffs, why should it be in regular season play? Even though only 1 playoff spot would have changed last year if there was not a shootout, I still think it will affect teams in the future a little more prominently.
I no one wins after 10 minutes of 4 on 4, i see nothing wrong with a tie. I believe most games would end before 10 minutes are up. You can see it in alot of games, if there were only a couple more minutes of OT there wouldn't have to be a shootout. |
| Guest6081 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 14:03:26
i agree with geust 408.... whatever except when he says 3 on 3 although that would be exciting this is the nhl not a gmae of shimmy on a backyard rink it should stay the way it is or go to 5 v 5 then 4 v 4 a rule the nhl should take out is delay of game for flipping it over the glass no one does it on pourpose and it decides the outcome of games. the same thing should happen when you flip it over the glass as when you ice it |
| Guest4803 |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 11:43:55
i think shootouts do bring a lot of excitment to the game, however never should they be implemented into the playoffs, and id also like to see overtime be switched from one 5 minute 4vs4 to one 5 mins 4vs4 followed by an additional 5 min 3vs3, then a shootout if required. |
