Time to make all games worth three points?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The shootout is no more gimmicky then continous 5 minute basketball overtime where guys are fouling out or the tennis 12 point tiebreaker.

You don't see how a hockey shootout, which has nothing to do with the point of the main part of the game, is more gimmicky than basketball, who plays overtime by exactly the same rules as regular time, using the same number of players, or tennis, which has the same individual game, but simply has a condensed format

Basketball has 5 on 5 in regular time, and 5 on 5 overtime until one team wins.
Tennis is one on one, and a tiebreaker game is one on one.

Hockey is 5 on 5, but the shootout is essentially 1 on 0 (the goalie not being part of the original 5).

The three would be only be the same gimmicky if Basketball decided ties after overtime by having a free throw shooting contest, and Tennis decided 6-6 sets with a fastest serve competition.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I agree that it would work better in hockey.

Soccer has a HUGE home advantage (not sure why) and also a HUGE disparity between teams. So little teams are holding on for ties. Heck a small team goes on the road to Manchester United, a tie might be a miracle. They are holding on for dear life from the opening whistle.

Plus there's relegation! so those odd points picked up for ties could really come in handy at the end. And it's a balanced schedule so if you got a tie against XXX and your fellow bottom feeder did not, that could make the difference!

You're not reward success though. Good job on not losing, but you didn't win either. Why reward that?

There's a reason ties were removed from the NHL. Plus as a whole, teams are fairly balanced. How many games went to SO last season? Those would all become ties, and that would be a lot. What's the benefit in having ties? There isn't any gain or benefit in it. The only people it benefit are the teams that cannot beat their opponent, but hold on enough to not officially lose. That's reward failure moreso than success. The NHL should be getting out of that mindset.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

You don't see how a hockey shootout, which has nothing to do with the point of the main part of the game, is more gimmicky than basketball, who plays overtime by exactly the same rules as regular time, using the same number of players, or tennis, which has the same individual game, but simply has a condensed format

Basketball has 5 on 5 in regular time, and 5 on 5 overtime until one team wins.
Tennis is one on one, and a tiebreaker game is one on one.

Hockey is 5 on 5, but the shootout is essentially 1 on 0 (the goalie not being part of the original 5).

The three would be only be the same gimmicky if Basketball decided ties after overtime by having a free throw shooting contest, and Tennis decided 6-6 sets with a fastest serve competition.

Basketball and Tennis are sports were points are scored at frequency and the opponents rarely have the same score at the end of an interval. When they have to go extra time, usually the match can end a short time afterwards. Hockey is completely different sport where as points aren't gained as frequently or easily. There's a great chance in hockey that OT will go on for long period of time; especially if both teams play safe and defensive.

If hockey was a sport where scoring could occur with more frequency, than shootouts would occur a lot less since these games would conclude in 5 minute OT much more often.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see the context of your post now.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Re: Flashpoint's 3 point system, I have no problem with that either. Works for me.

This is nonsense. In those examples, the players are still playing the sport. The more accurate analogy would be if basketball overtime were contested by means of a three-point shooting competition, or if tennis tie-breakers were won by who could serve the most aces.

That's fine, then they should get rid of it. I hate it.

But if the NHL likes it they should 'like-like' it. Promote the hell out of it. Not come up with this apologetic we really like it but the poor team that loses it gets a point since it's not hockey.

[AR_Six]

^I guess I have trouble with the idea of "if you're going to do it, get behind it", because I dislike it so much I would be hard pressed to proffer even feigned enthusiasm.

Originally Posted by Joborule

If hockey was a sport where scoring could occur with more frequency, than shootouts would occur a lot less since these games would conclude in 5 minute OT much more often.

Hence my advocacy of continuous 3 on 3 in place of the shootout. I really do not believe it would last longer on average than the shootout, and while still a bit gimmicky, at least you're playing the game itself, complete with the normal rule set.

The only 3 on 3 I've seen in OT ended in about 15 seconds after the Ducks won a faceoff in their own end and Scott Niedermayer immediately got a breakaway.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Joborule

You're not reward success though. Good job on not losing, but you didn't win either. Why reward that?

There's a reason ties were removed from the NHL. Plus as a whole, teams are fairly balanced. How many games went to SO last season? Those would all become ties, and that would be a lot. What's the benefit in having ties? There isn't any gain or benefit in it. The only people it benefit are the teams that cannot beat their opponent, but hold on enough to not officially lose. That's reward failure moreso than success. The NHL should be getting out of that mindset.

A tie is an achievement. The other team couldn't beat you.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^I guess I have trouble with the idea of "if you're going to do it, get behind it", because I dislike it so much I would be hard pressed to proffer even feigned enthusiasm.

Hence my advocacy of continuous 3 on 3 in place of the shootout. I really do not believe it would last longer on average than the shootout, and while still a bit gimmicky, at least you're playing the game itself, complete with the normal rule set.

The only 3 on 3 I've seen in OT ended in about 15 seconds after the Ducks won a faceoff in their own end and Scott Niedermayer immediately got a breakaway.

3 on 3 is a bit extreme, we don't need things ending in 15 seconds.

4 on 4 continuous OT would be sufficient. Since the IIHF went to 20 minute 4-on-4 OT in the gold medal game of their tournaments, they've never had to go to a shootout.

[You Need a Thneed]

One of the things I hate most about the shootout is the emotions that come to fans and teams after what is essentially a coin flip. They play a hard fought game, then in the end, one team and set of fans are up becasue they won the coin flip, and the other team and fans are down because they lost the coin flip.

The coin flip win continues winning streaks, and a coin flip loss continues losing streaks.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^I guess I have trouble with the idea of "if you're going to do it, get behind it", because I dislike it so much I would be hard pressed to proffer even feigned enthusiasm.

Hence my advocacy of continuous 3 on 3 in place of the shootout. I really do not believe it would last longer on average than the shootout, and while still a bit gimmicky, at least you're playing the game itself, complete with the normal rule set.

The only 3 on 3 I've seen in OT ended in about 15 seconds after the Ducks won a faceoff in their own end and Scott Niedermayer immediately got a breakaway.

The argument though is that's not 'real' hockey either. Why not go to 2 on 2, or 1 on 1 afterwards if a victor still isn't found?

I think once you go below the 4 on 4 mark, the game is just as 'gimmicky' as the shootout is.

I think the way the game plays out currently is now is fine. The only thing that I think needs to change is the amount of shootout rounds. It should be a best of 5. 3 is too quick and doesn't really give teams a fair chance at trying to win it. If you score your first two, and stop the opponents first two, the shootout is already done. Let's at least get a shot of using 5 of your 18 players on your roster, rather than only 3, which should be absolute minimum.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

A tie is an achievement. The other team couldn't beat you.

But you couldn't beat them either. That's not accomplishing anything.

If your objective is to climb a set a stairs to the top, and you made it halfway, you didn't accomplish your goal.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The three would be only be the same gimmicky if Basketball decided ties after overtime by having a free throw shooting contest, and Tennis decided 6-6 sets with a fastest serve competition.

I get your point but in hockey it is still a player from each team battling in the shootout.

I don't really mind the shootout. There is strategy developed from both the shooter and the netminder. There is excitement in the crowd. And the game doesn't end in a draw. I'd like to see the system stay the same but with 5 shooters and 3 points for a regulation win.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Joborule

But you couldn't beat them either. That's not accomplishing anything.

If your objective is to climb a set a stairs to the top, and you made it halfway, you didn't accomplish your goal.

The stairs aren't fighting back

[Joborule]

I think it would be helpful to know on average, how many scoring chances are generated in total in 4 on 4 OT. If a fair share can occur in 5 minutes, would extending it to 10 minutes yield much more game deciding results? 20 minutes would be pushing it a bit too far, but an additional 5 minutes wouldn't be too much.

[Wormius]

Unless you decrease the playable ice surface, a 3 v 3 still seems pretty gimmicky since basically anybody who has possession ofthe puck has a 95% chance at a breakaway, and hence it just becomes a shootout situation basically.

If an SO has to be part of the OT system, I think I would like to see all of the players on the bench have to participate in it and have it comprised of the strongest and weakest players of both teams.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The stairs aren't fighting back

Except when Taylor Hall is climbing them.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Joborule

The argument though is that's not 'real' hockey either. Why not go to 2 on 2, or 1 on 1 afterwards if a victor still isn't found?

Because I don't think it would be necessary. I can see a 4 on 4 game going on for 20 minutes every once in a blue moon. I cannot see a 3 on 3 game going beyond 5 or so without a goal.

I think once you go below the 4 on 4 mark, the game is just as 'gimmicky' as the shootout is.

I don't see how you can take this position. 3 on 3 is exactly like 5 on 5 hockey except for the number of players on the ice - the rules are identical. The shootout looks nothing like 5 on 5 hockey.

[MisterJoji]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Because I don't think it would be necessary. I can see a 4 on 4 game going on for 20 minutes every once in a blue moon. I cannot see a 3 on 3 game going beyond 5 or so without a goal.


I don't see how you can take this position. 3 on 3 is exactly like 5 on 5 hockey except for the number of players on the ice - the rules are identical. The shootout looks nothing like 5 on 5 hockey.

For sure. At least 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 situations can actually occur during a game. 4 on 4 fairly frequently, and 3 on 3 rarely, but it does happen. You will never see a shootout in the middle of the 2nd period.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

For sure. At least 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 situations can actually occur during a game. 4 on 4 fairly frequently, and 3 on 3 rarely, but it does happen. You will never see a shootout in the middle of the 2nd period.

That would be entertaining and would replace Steve Strachan.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

For sure. At least 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 situations can actually occur during a game. 4 on 4 fairly frequently, and 3 on 3 rarely, but it does happen. You will never see a shootout in the middle of the 2nd period.

Ummm.. yes you do. And its probably a lot more common than 3 on 3.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Ummm.. yes you do. And its probably a lot more common than 3 on 3.

Are you talking about penalty shots, or breakaways?