Good News for Shootout Dislikers?

[Dion]

Shootouts are an abomination to the game of hockey. Anything that will lessen the chances of this happening is a good thing!

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The OTL is far more offensive and detrimental to the game than the shootout. Just get rid of that, then there will be no incentive to go to OT and less games will go to OT and less games will go to a shoot out.

This.

Shootouts or no shootouts, OT tweaks or none, OTLs are a farce and need to be rid of. Go to a straight win percentage system, or 3 point win system with no OTLs.

[GioforPM]

I think a team needs to be rewarded for tieing the game in regulation time. If the Sabres manage to stay with the Blackhawks for 60 minutes it's an achievement.

[N-E-B]

My suggestion would be 5 minutes of 4-on-4, 5 minutes of 3-on-3, and then a shootout. Personally I love the shootout, but I understand why others don't like it.

As for the points system, I'd love to see us adopt Major League Baseball's system and use games back instead of points. It's by far the most fair and simple way to determine who's the best. No one in baseball complains that they don't gain half a game for an extra innings loss, because that's part of what makes extra innings so exciting. All or nothing. Points systems are confusing and are never going to please everyone.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Dagger

What exactly is wrong with a draw again?

do you like soccer?

[PIMking]

Why cant we just go on until someone wins? Baseball does it, college football does it.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Why cant we just go on until someone wins? Baseball does it, college football does it.

Baseball doesn't involve the massive expenditure of energy that overtime hockey does, and in college football... a) the schedule is more conducive to that type of overtime and b) it is easier to score.

Would be the primary arguments. Not sure where I stand.

[dino7c]

3 on 3 is closer to hockey than a shootout

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The OTL is far more offensive and detrimental to the game than the shootout. Just get rid of that, then there will be no incentive to go to OT and less games will go to OT and less games will go to a shoot out.

WRONG. The OTL was first introduced as an incentive to help eliminate ties in the first place because there were a lot of overtime games, and most of them were boring trapfests that never solved anything. The last year in the old system there were 162 games that ended in a tie in a 27-team league; 14.6% of all the games played. The following year after the OTL was introduced, there were only 146; 13% of all games played, but more importantly, the changes made a perceptible impact to the quality of the game by providing an incentive to actually win as opposed to just avoiding a loss. Last year, there were 178 games that went to the shootout; 14.5% of all games played. Again, drawing from my memory of OT games played in the 90s, these were still much more enjoyable games to watch because teams don't just play not to lose.

In the first place, I can't imagine why you would think fewer games would end up going to OT if the old system were reimplemented. What would have changed to affect this? In the second place, I think that you greatly underestimate the impact that the OTL has on what actually happens in OT. Under the old system there was always a greater incentive for a team to ensure that they didn't lose in OT, and consequently both teams always tended to play for the tie. When the system changed, it opened things up and made for a better quality product on the ice. If they returned to the old system, then teams would again just play for 5 mins of survival in OT by keeping the puck out of their own end, and hoping for a breakdown from the other team.

Like it or not, the OTL DOES serve a useful purpose in helping to make each game in itself more enjoyable. While I agree that it contributes to a false sense of parity, and the current system is flawed, the solution IS NOT to do away altogether with the OTL. At this stage, it seems to me that the most practical thing to do is to adopt a 3-point system: 3 for an RW, 2 for an OT/SOW, 1 for an OT/SOL. Also, I would prefer adopting a 4v4 and 3v3 format for OT.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PIMking

Why cant we just go on until someone wins? Baseball does it, college football does it.

It is not possible. The NHL schedule is too long, it would almost certainly breach existing broadcasting agreements and make any future television contracts untenable, and the NHLPA would never approve a format that could see players frequently logging upwards of 40 mins of icetime/night over a five month period of regular season play. How many players would be completely broken down by March? by February? by January? How many teams would simply concede the point in a horribly uneventful and unsporting fashion because it makes more practical sense to their own schedule?

It would never happen, and it is not practical.

[Incogneto]

So....reading this thread, i think we all (most) agree on one thing: The Loser Point sucks. Do away with it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by albertGQ

5 minutes of 5 on 5 sudden death OT. Loser gets zero points. If still tied after 5 minutes, the game ends in a tie and each team gets one point.

No team (read coach) wants to lose a point that they already have. Thus both teams play defense for the 5 minutes and keep their point. It doesn't work and this is basically why we have the shootout now.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

So....reading this thread, i think we all (most) agree on one thing: The Loser Point sucks. Do away with it.

No not everyone agrees with that.

An OT result is not as definitive as a regulation win. That's why the 3-2-1 system makes more sense for many of us.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Dagger

What exactly is wrong with a draw again?

No sporting contest should ever end in a draw.
The nature of sport is there is a winner and a loser

[Huntingwhale]

4 on 4 unlimited over time, just like the playoffs.

[terminator]

Imagine............ Iginla, Jbo and Tanguy............... mind = blown.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Acey

Baseball doesn't involve the massive expenditure of energy that overtime hockey does, and in college football... a) the schedule is more conducive to that type of overtime and b) it is easier to score.

Would be the primary arguments. Not sure where I stand.

Not only that, but something like 30% of games go to overtime. It's just not feasible to go until there's a winner. The current system is the best, though I like the idea of the 3 on 3 wrinkle

[waner]

Originally Posted by InCoGnEtO

So....reading this thread, i think we all (most) agree on one thing: The Loser Point sucks. Do away with it.

I would much rather have a 4-3-2-1 or 3-2-1 point system than getting rid of the loser point and actually prefer the current system over just giving out 2 points to winner and nothing to loser.

[FlamesAddiction]

I hate shootouts. In isolation, they are fun to watch, but as a way to decide a winner, I don't like them.

I would prefer to just see them have 4-on-4 for 10 minutes, or 5 minutes of 4-on-4 and 5 minutes of 3-on-3.

In fact, simply extending 5-on-5 OT for a whole 10 minutes would have likely cut down on the number of ties significantly. I guess when trying to get TV deals, they needed to make sure the games typically stayed under 2.5 hours though.

[GioforPM]

In the old days I used to appreciate a hard fought draw. And the concept of the extra point was to encourage teams to try and win in OT, as opposed to playing it safe. If you think of it as a point for the draw with an extra poin for OTWt, instead of a loser point, it is perhaps less offensive.