[News] NHL GM Meetings

[Jacks]

A rule was brought up to punish goaltenders who crossed the centre red-line to fight.

That's kind of dumb, might as just well say that goalies can't fight. Are they supposed to skate to the middle and scrap it out exactly on the red line?

The rule should be that a goalie can't cross the opposing blue line. That way if a goalie doesn't want to get mugged by Cam Ward they simply have to stay in their net. If they want to fight they have 1/2 the rink to do it in.

[SOMBRI2]

10 minutes of sudden death overtime 5 on 5 is my preference, then select a fan to flip the coin for tie-breaker.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Originally Posted by SOMBRI2

10 minutes of sudden death overtime 5 on 5 is my preference, then select a fan to flip the coin for tie-breaker.

Safeway Flip and Win!

[the2bears]

The GMs got clarification on the playoff format, which could include wild-card teams crossing over because of total points even if four make it from each division in one conference.

Is this a new clarification? I haven't been paying attention too much, but interesting that a team out west seems likely to play in the Eastern Conference play-off bracket.

[Bourque's Twin]

Originally Posted by pylon

3 on 3 would be amazing.

Imagine this matchup:

Ovechkin/Backstrom/Green

vs

Crosby/Malkin/Letang

Or it could be

Cammalleri / Stajan / Wideman

vs

Crosby / Malkin/ Letang

[GirlySports]

just play two 5 minute overtime periods, the 2nd one 3-on-3.
They could even change ends so that 3-on-3 has the bench at the far end.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Is this a new clarification? I haven't been paying attention too much, but interesting that a team out west seems likely to play in the Eastern Conference play-off bracket.

you can't crossover to the other conference, just to the other division within the conference.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

you can't crossover to the other conference, just to the other division within the conference.

You're right. I see what the quote is saying now, I was somehow thinking that 4+4 was more than 8

[Joborule]

You know what, in years past, I was supportive of the idea of shootouts and maybe extending OT another 5 minutes, keeping it 4 on 4 or switching to 3-on-3 after five minutes. Anything but a tie was also my mindset.

Now, I wouldn't mind the 10 minute OT still, but I also wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of the shootouts and bringing back the tie. At this point a shootout isn't really much different from a tie. It's a completely different form of hockey that dictates if a team wins or loses, which isn't really a fair way tot decide the game.

The fact they don't do this for the playoffs means that it shouldn't be done in the regular season either since those points do matter in the end. Why should a team make the playoffs off of events that don't take place at that point of the season? You could argue 4 on 4 hockey is different as well, but the fundamentals remain the same and keeps the team aspects in tact.

So if I had control, I would make it 4-on-4 OT for 10 minutes and if a winner isn't decided then, it ends in a tie; both teams get a point. But to ensure a tie isn't that ideal of a result, make regulation wins worth 3 points, and OT wins worth 2 points, and there's no loser points. This way, you push teams late in the 3rd to go for the win, and push them even more to win the game in OT, because one point isn't going to really help them in the standings, and feels more like a loss than a win, which it should be.

But for the love of god, get rid of the loser point, please.

[EYE_Overstand]

Originally Posted by Joborule

You know what, in years past, I was supportive of the idea of shootouts and maybe extending OT another 5 minutes, keeping it 4 on 4 or switching to 3-on-3 after five minutes. Anything but a tie was also my mindset.

Now, I wouldn't mind the 10 minute OT still, but I also wouldn't be opposed to getting rid of the shootouts and bringing back the tie. At this point a shootout isn't really much different from a tie. It's a completely different form of hockey that dictates if a team wins or loses, which isn't really a fair way tot decide the game.

The fact they don't do this for the playoffs means that it shouldn't be done in the regular season either since those points do matter in the end. Why should a team make the playoffs off of events that don't take place at that point of the season? You could argue 4 on 4 hockey is different as well, but the fundamentals remain the same and keeps the team aspects in tact.

So if I had control, I would make it 4-on-4 OT for 10 minutes and if a winner isn't decided then, it ends in a tie; both teams get a point. But to ensure a tie isn't that ideal of a result, make regulation wins worth 3 points, and OT wins worth 2 points, and there's no loser points. This way, you push teams late in the 3rd to go for the win, and push them even more to win the game in OT, because one point isn't going to really help them in the standings, and feels more like a loss than a win, which it should be.

But for the love of god, get rid of the loser point, please.

i stopped reading at this point… haha

[GirlySports]

the opposite could happen though.

teams with the lead could really crack down to protect their 3 points or in a tied game sucky teams could just be satisfied with 1 point and grind out overtime, scared of losing that point or scared of giving the other team 2. With 4-on-4 it's actually more difficult to get the puck off a team who doesn't want to give it up.

[Stay Golden]

Would like to see 4 on 4 then 3 on 3 eliminate the shoot out.

[GirlySports]

the problem with extending overtime and not having a shootout is that you'd have to have a 3rd intermission with no beer.

For playoffs is ok but for regular season in January? i'm not sure I want to leave the arena at 11pm.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

the opposite could happen though.

teams with the lead could really crack down to protect their 3 points or in a tied game sucky teams could just be satisfied with 1 point and grind out overtime, scared of losing that point or scared of giving the other team 2. With 4-on-4 it's actually more difficult to get the puck off a team who doesn't want to give it up.

That's no different from how it is now though. If you have the point, protect it at the end. That's what you should be doing. It's the other team job to find a way to score to tie it. And you have lower quality teams trying to force the game to overtime to get a point. In OT, two points are up for grabs. Both teams are unlikely to be content with just one point. Especially late in the season if they need to make up points in the standings.

[FlameZilla]

Originally Posted by troutman

4 on 4 is not true hockey IMO, and 3 on 3 is even worse. Hockey is a team game, and many players will never see the ice in these situations. Not sure that is an improvement on shoot-outs.

I'd rather see 5 on 5 sudden death for 10 minutes, followed by ties.

I'd like the same.

Would be interesting if wins were worth 3 points & ties just 1 point though... It would make teams fight that much more for the extra winning point.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer

That is exactly it. And the trouble is it works. Every year you see terrible teams which have enough points to look close to the playoffs, and deluded fans the truly believe that their team was just a few wins off the mark. "If you look at our record at the end of the year when the pressure was off and we were facing backups, exclude a few games I do not like and rig the sample size, assume wins happen in a vacuum, we are totally going to make it next year!"

Personally I would like to get rid of points and just count wins. No differentiation between not winning and losing, no shootout to force every game to have a winner. I want both teams fighting for the win as hard as they can and taking risks near the end of the game.

It not only gives the illusion of parity it encourages defensive low scoring hockey. A team like the Wild would play the trap the whole game with the intent of making the game a tie. Once this was accomplished they now had a 50% chance of picking up the third point. By playing for the tie, they could have a good chance of having a .750 record. Under the old system a tie would at best give them a .500 record.

Myself, I'd be happy with the current 5 minutes of OT and if nothing is settled, the game ends in a tie. There is nothing wrong with ties. Oh yeah, 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie and nothing for a OT or regular game lose. I used to want the 3 point system but looking a Euro leagues who use it, it looks even more artificial than what we now have.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Joborule

That's no different from how it is now though. If you have the point, protect it at the end. That's what you should be doing. It's the other team job to find a way to score to tie it. And you have lower quality teams trying to force the game to overtime to get a point. In OT, two points are up for grabs. Both teams are unlikely to be content with just one point. Especially late in the season if they need to make up points in the standings.

True except to go from 3 points to 0 is a big drop.

In the 3rd period now a team with the lead will try to hold it but if they don't they just go from 2 points down to 1 with the possibility of getting 2 again.

In your system, a team with a 1 goal lead with 5 minutes left has 3 points. If they blow it, they could have 0 points with the possibility of 1? maybe 2? but could be 0. I'd be really trapping and holding onto my lead even moreso than now.

We see this in soccer a lot, a team with 3 points trying to hold on and even if they blow it, they still get a tie. From 3 to 0, I'd be scared.

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

Anyone spotted Feaster talking to another GM yet?

That should get this thread really going.

In all seriousness though, goalie fights are so rare as it is that I don't think there should be any reason to dish out extra punishment for them.

I agree with your first point, and that goalie fights are rare, but nonetheless they really are pointless, in my opinion. A defenseman and forward scrapping because of escalating physical contact is okay, I believe, but two goalies fighting is more of a gong show.

[TurnedTheCorner]

Given that meaningless mid-August baseball games can run into 15+ innings, I would hope that a 10 minute 4-on-4 OT would be palatable. I don't think the shootout will go away now that it's been introduced -- so long as it never creeps into the playoffs, I'm good.

[TurnedTheCorner]

And everyone wanting a change to the points system knows damn well the BoG loves the broken point system now because it makes it easier for every team to remain artificially close in playoff races and be a ".500" team. Stop posting about your ideas to fix the points system on message boards. 1) You're preaching to the choir for the most part, and 2) It won't change anything, no matter how passionately you type out your proposal.