Should the NHL perhaps look at undoing the long-change in OT rule? That made sense for four on four, but it might prove to be unnecessary three on three. Three on three will be exciting for the fans, but it may prove a bit of a downer if every overtime game ends after a minute.
Can someone make a seriously compelling argument against Win-Loss-Tie, win = 3 points? OT to decide playoff games only. No gimmicks, no shenanigans, and most importantly, the spirit and game of hockey isn't altered.
Have you ever seen a great game battled out between two evenly matched teams, and thought to yourself, wow it's great that the other team got the extra point through the skills comp?
Or even a team that has been greatly outplayed, but hung on for the tie. Then it goes to OT or SO and a winner is decided that probably shouldn't have won the game.
Can someone make a seriously compelling argument against Win-Loss-Tie, win = 3 points? OT to decide playoff games only. No gimmicks, no shenanigans, and most importantly, the spirit and game of hockey isn't altered.
Have you ever seen a great game battled out between two evenly matched teams, and thought to yourself, wow it's great that the other team got the extra point through the skills comp?
Or even a team that has been greatly outplayed, but hung on for the tie. Then it goes to OT or SO and a winner is decided that probably shouldn't have won the game.
Ties are boring.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Weitz For This Useful Post:
Should the NHL perhaps look at undoing the long-change in OT rule? That made sense for four on four, but it might prove to be unnecessary three on three. Three on three will be exciting for the fans, but it may prove a bit of a downer if every overtime game ends after a minute.
What about a long change period 1 and 3, short for 2 and OT? I recall reading a suggestion like this before but for different reasons.
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleF For This Useful Post:
I'm perfectly fine with them going back to ties but I'd rather have a game decided 3 on 3 than in a shootout. Atleast then the winning goal is scored because of a team effort.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Inferno For This Useful Post:
Well my original post specifically asked for a compelling argument. That's not exactly compelling.
I also noted that a win should be 3 pts, a tie 1, a loss 0. That will compel teams to play 100% effort until the final buzzer for the extra 2 points.
You should NEVER in ANY sport get a point for losing.
I agree with that. But I don't agree with ties. 2 points for a win in whatever way (regulation, OT, shootout, whatever) no points for a loss. Essentially the same as Basketball and Baseball.
Can someone make a seriously compelling argument against Win-Loss-Tie, win = 3 points? OT to decide playoff games only. No gimmicks, no shenanigans, ....
Yep, it's a game. The whole point of playing is to pick a winner. Cheer when your team wins. Feel sad for an hour when your team loses. Just have a bit of fun for 2.5 hours, then get back to real life until the next game.
__________________
I like to quote myself - scotty2hotty
Last edited by scotty2hotty; 09-18-2015 at 01:26 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to scotty2hotty For This Useful Post:
Blues coaches discuss 3 on 3 OT strategy
