Fixing 3-on-3 overtime

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, but if there’s no OT like he said, there’s no need.

The reason they introduced OT in the first place was that teams were playing for the tie. Which sucks.

Solve the original problem in a more simple way - make the win worth 3 points

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Enables a few dominant clubs to win the season easily, maybe rest some key players early, pretty much destroys any 'plucky underdog' chances

No it doesn't. There will always be dominant teams at the top, regardless of the point system. As long as there are a bunch of teams in the middle (which there will be with a salary cap), there are going to be playoff races

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The reason they introduced OT in the first place was that teams were playing for the tie. Which sucks.

Solve the original problem in a more simple way - make the win worth 3 points

OK. Your reference to “regulation” confused me. It’s all regulation time in this scenario.

[afc wimbledon]

It's a great system in the Premier league, one or two clubs can get a 10 point lead by November, pretty much everything is decided by Xmas and the last 3 or 4 months are just a formality

[Enoch Root]

the lack of parity in the Premier League has nothing to do with the point system

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

the lack of parity in the Premier League has nothing to do with the point system

The point system was designed to help that lack of parity though, a lesser club that doesnt have the skill set on ice but guts out a draw against the big boys is still left in the dust after a month or so, any system that rewards wins by a factor of three over a draw massively helps the best clubs

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The point system was designed to help that lack of parity though, a lesser club that doesnt have the skill set on ice but guts out a draw against the big boys is still left in the dust after a month or so, any system that rewards wins by a factor of three over a draw massively helps the best clubs

Was gonna say - draws are a much bigger factor in soccer.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The point system was designed to help that lack of parity though, a lesser club that doesnt have the skill set on ice but guts out a draw against the big boys is still left in the dust after a month or so, any system that rewards wins by a factor of three over a draw massively helps the best clubs

The discrepancy between teams just isn't the same in hockey, not even close.

Again, the point system is not what's causing the disparity in the PL

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The reason they introduced OT in the first place was that teams were playing for the tie. Which sucks.

Solve the original problem in a more simple way - make the win worth 3 points

Yep, teams who need points will pour it on in the 3rd period of a tie game as there is an extra TWO points on the line, not just one.



The points create incentive to avoid tie games. But if there is a tie game, so be it. A hard fought tie hockey game is still entertaining (see Pens vs Flames). Doing pond hockey (3 on 3) or a skills comp (shootout) cheapens the hockey product.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's a great system in the Premier league, one or two clubs can get a 10 point lead by November, pretty much everything is decided by Xmas and the last 3 or 4 months are just a formality

Isn't the lack of any kind of playoff the bigger issue?

It would actually be a lot of fun if it was just a 1v2 winner takes all

[Classic_Sniper]

No offsides would be a rule I'd implement. I mean honestly, has there even been an offside called in 3 on 3 overtime history?

No Offsides = No tag up, which normally just saps the energy out of the crowd anyway because they know nothing will occur for 5-10 seconds while the possessing team sets up again.

Shot clock would be a cool idea, but way too extreme for the game of hockey and its history.

[Huntingwhale]

I actually like the no offside rule too. Keeps offensive players up the ice instead of always winding back to reset if the puck comes out of the o-zone. Instead of having to tag up, the forwards can stay deep in the zone without having to come out could expect either a long stretch pass or their D to rush up the ice. I think it's worth a shot to try it out.

I used to like the idea of a loss of possession if you skate back over your own red line like basketball. But I'm sure coaches would find ways to spoil that eventually.

[dobbles]

I think I am on board with altering how points are awarded instead of trying to tweak on ice play. A big complaint I have had about hockey in general is that once scoring shut down in the 90's, teams no longer tried to outscore their opponents, they tried to give up less goals. Until that macro level strategy changes, then teams will always be way too cautious and ties and boring hockey will continue. We need to incentivize scoring and winning to try and shift things back.

[CalgaryFan1988]

I'd be curious to see how many games actually get to overtime if the system was 3-2-1.

I agree with the no shootout sentiment.

Regulation win - 3 points
Overtime win - 2 points
OT loss or tie - 1 point


Play a 5 minute OT 4 on 4. At least you see 4 on 4 in a hockey game.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I think I am on board with altering how points are awarded instead of trying to tweak on ice play. A big complaint I have had about hockey in general is that once scoring shut down in the 90's, teams no longer tried to outscore their opponents, they tried to give up less goals. Until that macro level strategy changes, then teams will always be way too cautious and ties and boring hockey will continue. We need to incentivize scoring and winning to try and shift things back.

What's to stop teams then from trying to score the first goal and then shutting it down?

If the two alternatives are 3 points vs 0 points, isn't that the rational strategy?

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Shazam

What's to stop teams then from trying to score the first goal and then shutting it down?

If the two alternatives are 3 points vs 0 points, isn't that the rational strategy?

You are reinforcing my larger problem. Hockey should be about scoring goals, not preventing goals. That would make for a more exciting game. When I think back to the 80s as a kid (and maybe its just nostalgia), players took chances and sometimes paid the price with a goal against. But they would keep trying because generating offense was far more important. It didn't matter if you gave up a goal because you knew you could score 3 more.

Your example represents an entire decade of hockey that most of us lived through. I'm not sure anyone actually enjoyed the trap era and 30 or 40 or 50 minutes of killing time once someone scored the first goal.

edit: and just to clarify, changing the OT rules does not solve my problem. IMO, the dullness of 3 on 3 that many in the thread are complaining about is just a symptom of the problem I am talking about, and rule changes will have to be implemented to swing the game in that direction. but that's a separate discussion.

[edslunch]

Once you cross the red line, if the puck goes back out it’s a penalty to touch it first. Kind of like a delayed penalty. Now you have a choice of letting the other team take possession in your half or taking a penalty.

Or would that make teams even more cautious?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by dobbles

You are reinforcing my larger problem. Hockey should be about scoring goals, not preventing goals. That would make for a more exciting game. When I think back to the 80s as a kid (and maybe its just nostalgia), players took chances and sometimes paid the price with a goal against. But they would keep trying because generating offense was far more important. It didn't matter if you gave up a goal because you knew you could score 3 more.

Your example represents an entire decade of hockey that most of us lived through. I'm not sure anyone actually enjoyed the trap era and 30 or 40 or 50 minutes of killing time once someone scored the first goal.

edit: and just to clarify, changing the OT rules does not solve my problem. IMO, the dullness of 3 on 3 that many in the thread are complaining about is just a symptom of the problem I am talking about, and rule changes will have to be implemented to swing the game in that direction. but that's a separate discussion.

Yeah, the dead puck era sucked.

Maybe more radical adjustments do need to be made - larger nets, larger rinks?

[GioforPM]

Not sudden death - total goals in 5 minutes of OT. No offside or icing. Pucks live off the net.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Yeah, the dead puck era sucked.

Maybe more radical adjustments do need to be made - larger nets, larger rinks?

This is somewhat off topic as we are talking more generically, but the concept has been brought up in relation to overtime so I will go with it.

I actually would really like to see the blue line go away. Just get rid of offsides and see what that does to the game. So much of the grindy 90s nature of hockey has to do with trying to gain and maintain the blue line. I would reallt like to see how hockey evolves without it. And it could be a much less 'radical' idea than changing net and rink sizes which would really get people in a tizzy.