I kind of like the AHL model where in the 7 min OT, its 4-on-4 for the first bit and then goes to 3-on-3 and a shootout afterwards.
I don't know if this all becoms gimmicky but I won't be opposed to it. The only thing I want is to have 3 points for a regulation win and 2 for OT win and 1 for OT loss.
I guess, but still only a fraction of the team that played hard the whole game (and season) will see the ice in 3 on 3.
Let's assume the top two pairs and top two lines see ice time.
That means 11 players per team. Over half the available players for a game.
So a shootout would have to go 10 rounds to match the participation levels of a session of 3 on 3.
I guess, but still only a fraction of the team that played hard the whole game (and season) will see the ice in 3 on 3.
As opposed to the shootout, where you hardly ever see anyone other than the same 3 guys plus your goalie (sometimes fewer)?
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I like the idea of 3 on 3, but this (above) is the ideal.
Ultimately, no 'extra time' options matter until they stop giving 3 points out for some games, and 2 for others. I like going back to ties as the solution.
Let's assume the top two pairs and top two lines see ice time.
That means 11 players per team. Over half the available players for a game.
So a shootout would have to go 10 rounds to match the participation levels of a session of 3 on 3.
I get that more actual players are involved, I meant more that it's still going to be a select group of players deciding 3 on 3, just like the shootout. That's more what I was going for.
So Adirondack's game went into OT tonight and into 3 on 3...
It is so exciting, it's ridiculous. I can't imagine any hockey fan not wanting it.
And calling it gimmicky doesn't sit with me either - so much skill and skating on display, individual one on one battles, two on ones, and end to end action.
What on earth is wrong with putting the best players on the ice and giving them room to really display their talents?
Location: Chicago Native relocated to the stinking desert of Utah
Exp:
I HATE Regular season OT in general...gimmicks be damned! I want to see a 3 point win 1 point tie NO OT format. Coaches that are cowardly enough to shut it down in the 3rd to protect their ONE point DO NOT DESERVE A CHANCE AT A SECOND POINT! Teams that play to win will pull away from teams that try NOT TO LOSE. This is as it should be.
__________________ "If the wine's not good enough for the cook, the wine's not good enough for the dish!" - Julia Child (goddess of the kitchen)
My vote hate a game decided by a shootout. Doesn't matter if the Flames are or are not built for 3 on 3.
That format would be just better for settling a tie in the most honest hockey way. Not Bettman's skills competition.
Not sure if this is the best thread to bump, but it was the only one I could find on 3-on-3 OT in general.
Here's a fan taken video of Jack Eichel's OT winner tonight.
3-on-3 OT looks fast paced and fun to watch! I can't wait to see Flames players like Gaudreau in OT, as I think small, speedy players will put on a show!
Where's the "Meh" or "I have no strong feelings either way" option in the poll? That's where my vote would go.
Just another thing the NHL is trying out. Tons of people will hate it, tons will love it, lots of debate will occur keeping interest in the game high. Meh.
It should be win-loss-tie. If two teams cannot decide a winner after 60 mins, then no team deserves extra points. A regulation win should be worth three points.
Stop with the shenanigans in hockey.
The Following User Says Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
I definitely like the sounds of 3 v 3 more than the shootout.
I do have a question though. Has there ever been any trials of other shoot out rules? For example having the defending team starting with a defenceman on the far blue line and have them chase the shooter for a chance at defending it and applying pressure on the shooter? It probably would be practical and would result in penatlies but to me it seems as though it would add some excitement to it.
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. Winston Churchill
