All professional league hockey is played 5 on 5.
Moving to a 4 on 4 game would not allow players to transition into the NHL game from any other league on earth. 4 on 4 is a bad idea. Increasing the size of the ice is also a bad idea as there is not higher scoring on international ice and way way way less physical games. I play 4 on 4 occasionally and its totally a game of keep away and we aren't that good; I could only imagine what it would be like when a team got a 2 goal lead and decided to never give up the puck.
3 on 3 is exciting because its sudden death, take that away and its boring as sh*t. Prime example is find someone who in the 80's. 90's, 00's or anytime before 3 on 3 thought overtime in the playoffs was boring. People would sit through double, triple, quadruple overtime, 60+ extra minutes and say it was the best game ever yet there was only 1 GOAL scored. Scoring plays a part but it isn't why hockey is exciting, what makes it exciting is that it means something. The fact that teams play 3 on 3 then shootout in the regular season then switch to sudden death in the playoffs is a disgrace. I agree with the poster who said there needs to be ties and no loser point. 5 on 5 overtime 10 minutes. Wins get 3 points, ties get 1, oilers get 0 (sorry keyboard corrects losers to oilers for some reason). Teams will want the big jump of 2 points over a tie and will play for it.
__________________
PSN: Diemenz
|