GM Meetings - video review, OT and $68M cap

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I wonder if the cap not rising as expected will change the recent mentality to give out the Suter/Parise type deals in free agency. It seems a lot of teams have been doing business in a manner that expectations were the cap would eventually get close to $80 million. Could be a while until the CDN dollar gets back to par.

Not a fan of lengthening OT as games are long enough as is and it would make taking young kids on a weeknight pretty difficult.

The shootout lasts 5+ minutes anyway, so adding another 5 mins to the clock in OT shouldn't change the length of the game, except for the rare case where it gets to a shootout after 10 mins of 4 on 4.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

The shootout lasts 5+ minutes anyway, so adding another 5 mins to the clock in OT shouldn't change the length of the game, except for the rare case where it gets to a shootout after 10 mins of 4 on 4.

5+ minutes is could be an additional 12 minutes with stoppages and TV commercials, etc. It would take too long as we see a lot of extra time games as it is and you add more OT and it just means games last much later into the night. Would be pretty painful for a fans of an eastern teams to have to wait until nearly 1:00 a.m. to see the finish of an OT game in Calgary.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

5+ minutes is could be an additional 12 minutes with stoppages and TV commercials, etc. It would take too long as we see a lot of extra time games as it is and you add more OT and it just means games last much later into the night. Would be pretty painful for a fans of an eastern teams to have to wait until nearly 1:00 a.m. to see the finish of an OT game in Calgary.

you can compensate by no commercials in OT maybe see 6:55 start times rather than 7:05

[JiriHrdina]

I didn't think there were commercials in OT now

[The Fonz]

I just scrolled thru the NHL schedule this season, Nov 1 - Jan 31. There were 167 games that went into extra time, and out of those, 70 of them ended before getting to a shootout. So 42% of those games ended before 5 mins had expired.

I'm pretty confident that if you doubled the time of OT, as well as switched to the long change, atleast 80% of the games that went into extra time would be decided in OT, and never make it to the shootout.

[The Fonz]

I could see it being closer to 90%

[flamesfan6]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I didn't think there were commercials in OT now

that is correct, OT does not have any commercials

[googol]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I just scrolled thru the NHL schedule this season, Nov 1 - Jan 31. There were 167 games that went into extra time, and out of those, 70 of them ended before getting to a shootout. So 42% of those games ended before 5 mins had expired.

I'm pretty confident that if you doubled the time of OT, as well as switched to the long change, atleast 80% of the games that went into extra time would be decided in OT, and never make it to the shootout.

You know, that math is not correct. You can't just double 42%. It's like saying if we added an extra 10 minutes then there is a 120% chance the game ends... Many games would still go to a shootout regardless of OT length.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I just scrolled thru the NHL schedule this season, Nov 1 - Jan 31. There were 167 games that went into extra time, and out of those, 70 of them ended before getting to a shootout. So 42% of those games ended before 5 mins had expired.

I'm pretty confident that if you doubled the time of OT, as well as switched to the long change, atleast 80% of the games that went into extra time would be decided in OT, and never make it to the shootout.

Originally Posted by googol

You know, that math is not correct. You can't just double 42%. It's like saying if we added an extra 10 minutes then there is a 120% chance the game ends... Many games would still go to a shootout regardless of OT length.

Relevant.

[albertGQ]

Unless they flood the ice after regulation, making OT have long changes isn't going to work. Goalies are going to scrape and chip their crease for the opposition goalie at the end of the third to give their team an advantage.

[Poe969]

With Berra gone, shootouts would suck! I'd love to see it go 4 on 4 for 5 minutes then go 3 on 3 for 5 minutes

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

No thank you. A tie is such a gross way to end a game.

Not any grosser than a skills competition.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing 4 on 4 for 5 minutes, then 3 on 3 for 5 minutes. Yes, 3 on 3 is still a little gimmicky, but at least it's still a team game, and I think the huge ice available would provide for more interesting moments.

If teams can't score then, it ends in a tie game. Some games are just meant to end in a tie.

[Stay Golden]

I would like to see OT go 5 min 4 on 4. Then 5 min 3 on 3. Eliminate the shoot out.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Not any grosser than a skills competition.



Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing 4 on 4 for 5 minutes, then 3 on 3 for 5 minutes. Yes, 3 on 3 is still a little gimmicky, but at least it's still a team game, and I think the huge ice available would provide for more interesting moments.



If teams can't score then, it ends in a tie game. Some games are just meant to end in a tie.

Yes grosser.

Ties suck. They're the work of the devil. It's not a result. This is not soccer where it's a treat just to score a couple over the course of 60 minutes. This is hockey, where 5-10 goals a game aren't surprising. A tie you say? Bully. Give me a result!

I don't care how the result is reached, be it a skills competition or a 25 extra minutes of just the goalies on the ice firing the puck at each other until one scores, just give me a winner.

That said, I think it would be interesting to take away the loser point, and make shoot out wins just 1 point.

[TjRhythmic]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Not any grosser than a skills competition.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing 4 on 4 for 5 minutes, then 3 on 3 for 5 minutes. Yes, 3 on 3 is still a little gimmicky, but at least it's still a team game, and I think the huge ice available would provide for more interesting moments.

If teams can't score then, it ends in a tie game. Some games are just meant to end in a tie.

Agree. I didn't mind the tie... I don't like the loser point. I liked the 2 points for a win, no points for a loss, and 1 point each for a tie.

Or have 3 points for a regulation or OT win, 0 points for a regulation or OT loss. 2 points for a shootout win, and 1 point for a shootout loss. That way you still get more points for playing the team game, and you might see more push in OT.

[schteve_d]

Even 3 on 3 is pushing it for me. I'd like to see a 20 minute 4 on 4 and then if it's still a tie, then it's a tie. I am ok with that.

Again, I know it will never happen but that's what I would like to see.

At the very, very least I could live with ten minute 4 on 4 overtime. I really think that would go a long way towards less shoot-outs.

Edit: The change of ends for the long-change has its merits too.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by TjRhythmic

Agree. I didn't mind the tie... I don't like the loser point. I liked the 2 points for a win, no points for a loss, and 1 point each for a tie.

Or have 3 points for a regulation or OT win, 0 points for a regulation or OT loss. 2 points for a shootout win, and 1 point for a shootout loss. That way you still get more points for playing the team game, and you might see more push in OT.

I don't think you should be rewarded for any type of loss, and that proposal gives incentive to play it safe in OT since you still have a chance at getting 2 out of 3 points. I think 3 points for a reg. win, 2 for OT, and 1 for shootout, with no loser points at all, would be the best system. It encourages teams to finish the game as quickly as possible since the points up for grabs regress the longer the game takes.

In the past, I was in the camp that was alright with shootouts deciding games, but I've changed my opinion and now think it's dumb to reward points for winning a skill competition after playing a team game all night long. It's the regular season, so a tied game isn't the end of the world. I feel any game that went to shootout ended in a draw anyway since they could get it done under normal play of hockey.

[FireGilbert]

First, go to 3 points for a regulation win. I do not understand why teams are rewarded for going to OT and it is not fair to have some games worth 2 points and others worth 3.

Secondly, flood the ice after OT and go 20 minutes 4 on 4 before going to a shootout. Some people are going to say this adds too much time to the game but I don't see the issue. The MLB and NBA have OT systems which can go on forever while the NFL system can add up to an hour onto the game without deciding a winner in the end.

[Sylvanfan]

Hockey needs to add a quarter point...Regulation win you get three points. OT game winner gets 2, loser gets 1. Shootout, winner gets 1.75 and the loser gets 1.25. All games are equal points, winning in a shootout is a lesser advantage.

[Red John]

Quarter points. Really?

How about this. 5 minutes of 4-on-4, 5 minutes of 3-on-3, or it's a tie. Zero points for OT losses.

Each game is back to being worth 2 points.