| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| leigh |
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 20:05:05
Well we've had the shoot out for a year and 16 games. We've all had time to reflect. What should we do with the Shoot Out? |
| 36 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 17:10:26
I was and still am a fan of the shoot out as a fan of the game because it is exciting and gets you on the end of your seat. However, if I was a player, I would not like it so much. Also, if I am a fan of teams like Toronto or Carolina, I really don't like it.
If the system was as it was before the lock out with no extra point for a shoot out win, the Western Conference playoff picture would have been exactly the same with the exception that San Jose and Nashville would have switched placed. Still would have played each other in the first round, but SJ would have had home ice advantage.
However, the East would have looked like this:
1 OTT
8 NYR
4 BUF
5 PIT
2 NJD
7 TOR
3 ATL
6 CAR
Carolina and Toronto would have been in and TBL and NYI would have been out. OTT would have been #1 and Buffalo #4.
This is a HUGE difference in the outcome of the year and could have had some big playoff implications. It also would have had some bigger impacts on the race for the draft as well. With the current rankings, Chicago was the 5th worst team and they ended up with the 1st overall pick. If there was no extra OT point, that would have been Boston's pick.
I think I would like to go back to a tie game and one point each as it was before the lockout. The shootout does not prove what TEAM is better. They were both equal on the night, hence the tie game after 65 minutes. Thinking of Carolina, the shoot out change their fate from 6th to 11th. That is too much of an impact to the overall game. It was the difference of Toronto at 9th or 7th.
|
| Patchy |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 17:02:01
I like the shootouts, but I hate it when my team loses in one. 
So I think there should be 10 minutes of OT, to solve it. Then if it's still tied, go to a shootout.
~~Go Leafs Go~~ |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 16:50:39
Regular season sudden death overtime until someone wins is a non-starter from both the NHL and NHLPA.
Casual hockey fans would not like it either.
I'm sure the die-hard hockey fans would be the only one that would be happy with this, and even then, not all of them. |
| Leafs Rock Planet |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 15:46:32
3 on 3 O.T would be very exciting hockey
Always next year!! |
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 15:34:05
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
I'm a pragmatic guy, so although I'd prefer to see games end with a winner in OT I can appreciate that big business won't let that happen. So my vote is for an ADDITIONAL 5 minutes of OT to try get a winner before the shoot out.
Ya I like that idea although i would make the extra 5 mins of OT 3 on 3.
When life gives you lemons throw them at the Ottawa Senators and their fans and hope it gets them in the eyes ;) |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 15:19:58
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
People keep mentioning all the fans love the shoot out. Has there been a poll conducted by the NHL to confirm this? Just curious.
I think they should play till someone wins. It's too long for the players to play? Are you for real? Oh nooooo! Now it took them a little longer to earn their $50 000 that evening. Maybe they should have tried harder during regulation time. Games shouldn't be decided in a non-team format. And really who cares if you get to see some wazoo move in the shootout. If a guy can't do it in a game then it doesn't mean a whole lot. If a game goes to OT then that usually means it was a good game and probably quite exciting. Why wouldn't you want to see more of it.
Shootouts and ties don't motivate the players to win. Wins and losses, that's what it's all about.
Willus, continuous OT has nothing to do with players "earning their pay". It doesn't exist in the regular season for two reasons (that I can think of):
1) Broadcasters, arena staff, etc. wouldn't be able to support all these extra-session games. The broadcasters would have to cut their broadcasts of the games short for other segments on TV and it would screw up their schedules big time. Plus, it would cost the teams a lot of money to have to pay their staff (I'm talking security, janitorial staff, etc.) extra hours, if they would even stay.
2) It would be too physically strenuous for the players and by the end of the year, the quality of hockey would start to diminish, not to mention players' careers would be cut short due to fatigue, higher injury proneness, etc. It's the same reason why the NFL only plays 16 games/year. It's why baseball plays 162. I think the NHL season is long enough, let alone adding that EXTRA wear and tear on the players. Not to mention the playoffs already have this format because there NEEDS to be a winner. There doesn't have to be one in the regular season, ties would be fine but the NHL found a quick, entertaining way to abolish them. |
| Leafs Rock Planet |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 14:54:40
When they first introduced the shootout i was not a fan but now I am starting to like it more and more.
Always next year!! |
| willus3 |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 14:48:16
People keep mentioning all the fans love the shoot out. Has there been a poll conducted by the NHL to confirm this? Just curious.
I think they should play till someone wins. It's too long for the players to play? Are you for real? Oh nooooo! Now it took them a little longer to earn their $50 000 that evening. Maybe they should have tried harder during regulation time. Games shouldn't be decided in a non-team format. And really who cares if you get to see some wazoo move in the shootout. If a guy can't do it in a game then it doesn't mean a whole lot. If a game goes to OT then that usually means it was a good game and probably quite exciting. Why wouldn't you want to see more of it.
Shootouts and ties don't motivate the players to win. Wins and losses, that's what it's all about.
"Go chase headlights!" |
| tctitans |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 13:05:07
I'm a fan and I don't like it - or what it does the the point standings. If 5 mins of OT doesnt settle anything, well then, it's a tie... and I'm completely happy and content with a tie.
My 2 cents. |
| leafsfan1 |
Posted - 04/10/2007 : 12:59:12
keep it the way it is everybody loves shootouts and sometimes the players can do there fancy moves. but one reason i hate shootouts is because the leafs suck in shootouts
Sens Suck
Habs Suck
Leafs Rule
|
| Guest8977 |
Posted - 11/18/2006 : 15:18:06
Shhotouts have excitement |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 21:11:53
We can't just freely be adding more playing time to games. With the already cramped schedules and all of the travelling that is done, it is simply illogical to play until there is a win. It's not even about the broadcasting. Why do you think NFL teams only play 16 games each? Why can the MLB play 162 games? It all has to do with how physically demanding the sport is and 82 games for the NHL is enough. Lengthening the games is ridiculous. There should be no more than 10 minutes of OT and then shootout or whatever but definitely no longer than that. |
| Guest4055 |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 20:32:16
I think that there should be an extra ten minutes of OT before the shootout. I would prefer for a team sport to be decided as a team, but I also like to see a winner in every game.
Playing OT until there is a winner is a playoff treat and should stay that way. |
| Guest6916 |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 15:09:04
It just doesn't make sense to me to go to a shoot out. Why would you spend 2 hours trying to decide a winner "within the game" itself only to go to a scrimmage drill? It is senseless. Like others in this thread I understand that in broadcasting time is expensive so that is why I think going to an extra 5 minutes of OT is a good idea. I think more games will be decided in OT. The side benefit of this is that for all you x-game thrill-seekers the shoot out will become even sweeter since it isn't happening every 5 games.
Love the new game, but no love for the shootout  |
| Guest4950 |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 11:40:33
quote:
Originally posted by Novie
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6916
I'd prefer to see a winner in a game but the shoot out sucks. Play until there is a winner. Everyone else does (except the aforementioned football) That is a lot more exciting than a shootout.
I'm no Leafs fan, but watching them in the shootout with the Habs on Saturday night was pretty exciting...much moreso than watching them dump and chase for another 35 minutes until someone made a mistake. Also, if coaches played for a win in overtime, the 5 minutes should be more then enough for someone to score...let's also add in the fact that referees will not call penalties in OT.
There is nothing wrong with having the shootout at the end of OT, but coaches and refs are making it happen far too often.
Go Sens
DUMP AND CHASE???? obviously you have not seen a leaf game this year...they are the furthest thing from the old dump and chase team they once were. |
| slapshot |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 10:50:30
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6589
I've heard lots of people saying that the fans love it. Well lots of fans love the fighting, and that is barely in the game anymore. Just because supposedly more fans like it, I don't. They should end in a tie, or keep playing until someone scores.
I have heard the opposite. I think most fans do like fighting but the suits in control want to phase it out. Staged fights are lame but in the heat of the moment - thats what hockey is all about. |
| Guest6589 |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 08:53:29
I've heard lots of people saying that the fans love it. Well lots of fans love the fighting, and that is barely in the game anymore. Just because supposedly more fans like it, I don't. They should end in a tie, or keep playing until someone scores. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 08:34:46
I think the shoot outs are great for the fans, but can be frustrating when they don't go your way. One thing I have noticed is that the overtime doesn't mean as much. Most games I have watched, the teams are playing tights and not wanting to make mistakes in the overtime. I think it would make the OT more meaningful if the losing team in the shoot out didn't get a point. That way, the teams would be more risk/reward driven in the overtime. |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 08:14:02
Well more fans than none want to see it. You don't have to want to. I sure know that despite the fact that it's a team game, I'm excited for every game that has shootout potential. They're fun to watch and I'm sure they'd be even better in person.
Sorry for all you traditionalists out there, you are heavily outnumbered. But I bet you'll go see the games anyways. |
| pucker |
Posted - 11/14/2006 : 08:13:42
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by bablaboushka
It's simple:
Who pays for the tickets? The fans
What do most fans want to see? Shootouts
Point is you try to please the ones who fund your pay cheque.
That is a rediculous statement. If you want to please the fans then there should be a winner. And the winner should come out of playing the game, not out of a peewee side show skills competition.
I dont think its ridiculous at all. What he is trying to say is the fans want a shootout, so give it to them. You are telling us what you think the fans want - a winner without the shootout. That is not the case.
PS - It is now part of playing the game so all you old school change fearing whiners need to suck it up. |
| leigh |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 22:34:17
quote:
Originally posted by bablaboushka
It's simple:
Who pays for the tickets? The fans
What do most fans want to see? Shootouts
Point is you try to please the ones who fund your pay cheque.
That is a rediculous statement. If you want to please the fans then there should be a winner. And the winner should come out of playing the game, not out of a peewee side show skills competition. |
| lyall |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 21:44:49
Keep it. Shoot outs are intense & spice up the game a bit. playing until there is a winner would take to long. So many back to back games for teams this season. Imagine playin 2 extra periods, then playing tommorow night. The shoot out may take a while sometimes, but you skate for 10 seconds the sit down. I don't like how only the winner gets the credit though.
"I hate to advocate alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone...but they've always worked for me."
Hunter S. Thompson |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 19:47:01
It's simple:
Who pays for the tickets? The fans
What do most fans want to see? Shootouts
Point is you try to please the ones who fund your pay cheque. |
| Guest4044 |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 18:30:34
quote:
Originally posted by toady210
I think shootouts r good think about it. it shows one players skills that u might not see in a game. like a quite defender that doesent score many goals during the season. the shootout gives them a chance for some good one on one action
Then let's save it for the Olympics. It has no place in pro-hockey. At least give it another 5 mins of sudden death OT  |
| toady210 |
Posted - 11/13/2006 : 16:19:06
I think shootouts r good think about it. it shows one players skills that u might not see in a game. like a quite defender that doesent score many goals during the season. the shootout gives them a chance for some good one on one action
B.g |
| ultimatetitman |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 15:03:40
It's simple. Hockey is a team game. If you want to see one on one action, go watch tennis.
Sure it works in soccer, but in soccer a 3-0 game is a blow out. Goals are about as common as an attractive Don Cherry suit. Besides, in my humble opinion, there shouldn't be shoot outs in soccer either.
Team games should be decided by the team, not by some basketball loving buffon in New York.
Just my opinion.... |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 11/02/2006 : 14:22:41
Oh yeah, duh! Why didn't I remember that? I'm an idiot, LOL
|
| pucker |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 15:35:02
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhailova
I think there should be 10 minutes of OT first, to up the chance of a game-winning goal, then do shoot-outs (The only problem with that is it allows not only more time for a tie-braker goal to be scored, but also time for the other team to tie it again). Shoot-outs are always suspenseful, especially if it's your favorite team, but they're also really exciting!
The OT is sudden death so there is no way a team could tie it up again. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 11/01/2006 : 13:08:25
I think there should be 10 minutes of OT first, to up the chance of a game-winning goal, then do shoot-outs (The only problem with that is it allows not only more time for a tie-braker goal to be scored, but also time for the other team to tie it again). Shoot-outs are always suspenseful, especially if it's your favorite team, but they're also really exciting!
|
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 18:50:50
That game isn't based on offense. If they played until there was a winner some games could last until the wee hours of the morning.
I think it's unreasonable to have games played until there is a winner during the regular season, it's just too much physical output and players would get exhausted much quicker. In baseball it's easy to do because the game isn't so physically demanding and it's easy in basketball because so many points are scored, it's rare that teams will tie beyond one OT session. I like it the way it is and really hope it doesn't change. |
| Ripley |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 12:56:49
Soccer is a notoriously low scoring game, even more so than hockey. How do professional soccer leagues handle it?
|
| leigh |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 12:54:25
I'm a pragmatic guy, so although I'd prefer to see games end with a winner in OT I can appreciate that big business won't let that happen. So my vote is for an ADDITIONAL 5 minutes of OT to try get a winner before the shoot out. |
| Novie |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 11:05:55
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6916
I'd prefer to see a winner in a game but the shoot out sucks. Play until there is a winner. Everyone else does (except the aforementioned football) That is a lot more exciting than a shootout.
I'm no Leafs fan, but watching them in the shootout with the Habs on Saturday night was pretty exciting...much moreso than watching them dump and chase for another 35 minutes until someone made a mistake. Also, if coaches played for a win in overtime, the 5 minutes should be more then enough for someone to score...let's also add in the fact that referees will not call penalties in OT.
There is nothing wrong with having the shootout at the end of OT, but coaches and refs are making it happen far too often.
Go Sens |
| Guest6916 |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 10:08:11
I'd prefer to see a winner in a game but the shoot out sucks. Play until there is a winner. Everyone else does (except the aforementioned football) That is a lot more exciting than a shootout. |
| admin |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 09:53:21
edit: moved to user polls forum.
admin thinks that there have been enough changes to the new NHL. Leave the shootout alone. |
| bablaboushka |
Posted - 10/30/2006 : 06:52:45
The fans love it (excluding some traditionalists who would rather see games end in ties) so what other justification does the league need? That was the whole point in it being installed and it has succeeded. The only other major sport that allows for ties is the NFL but the occurence is so rare that it's hardly worth saying they allow for them at all. There are tonnes of other things I would change before I would consider changing the shootout. |
