Fixing 3-on-3 overtime

[Traditional_Ale]

Two points for a win. Zero points for a draw. Solved.

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by Goriders

What about playing star wars to decide the game? All the players start on the goal line and try to make it down the ice without getting hit by a puck shot by the healthy scratched players between the bluelines. Anyone hit has to help the shooters in subsequent rounds.

Last player standing’s team is the winner. No slapshots or raising the puck. Or use sponge pucks.

This makes about the same sense to me as the shootout does to decide a game.

[Reign of Fire]

Originally Posted by Coach

Make 3v3 10 minutes. Take away the shootout tie results in no points for either team.

If there are no more points to play for beyond OT, someone has to end it in OT.

This is the same thing I was thinking of as a solution. Ties aren't bad, shootouts are.

[Macindoc]

As I have posted on other threads, I like the 3-2-1-0 points system. Right now, teams don’t mind going to OT because they are guaranteed a point but still have a chance of getting two. They are OK going to the shootout because they still have their guaranteed point with a 50:50 chance of another.

But if teams automatically lose a potential point by going to OT and another potential point by going to the SO, and knowing that you will get no points for losing in the SO, every team will be highly motivated to get it done during regulation time, and you won’t see teams going into defensive shells in the last half of the third period just playing for the guaranteed loser point. No points should ever be guaranteed until a team wins the game, and only wins should be rewarded with points.

[Philly06Cup]

I still pray for the day that on the final day of the regular season, two teams need 1 pt to make the playoffs. Using optimal game theory, they both skate around in circles for 60 minutes doing nothing to force overtime and get their loser point.

Embarass the hell out of the NHL: then they might finally fix the point system.

[FlamesAddiction]

I honestly think the problem with the points system is awarding too many points. Points are like currency and by adding extra points to the standings, it devalues the worth of a point. Make every point worth more.

I still prefer 2 points for a regulation or OT win (normal 5-on-5 OT for 10 min), and 0 points for the loser.

One point for a shootout win, and 0 points for the loser. Loser always gets 0 points, winning in a skill competition gets you 1 point. Shoot out wins shouldn't have the same value as a regular win. If they are intent on keeping 3-on-3 OT, then make it worth only one point as well. If you fail to win under the regular game rules, then it shouldn't be considered a full win in the standings.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If they are intent on keeping 3-on-3 OT, then make it worth only one point as well. If you fail to win under the regular game rules, then it shouldn't be considered a full win in the standings.

At that point, I would prefer to just scrap OT. No need for two gimmicks if they both have the same value.

I actually think that a 4 on 4 OT motivated by some urgency because you have fewer available points if it goes to a shootout would be quite exciting. As would the end of the third period if both teams would be losing a possible point by not ending it before OT. Basically, exactly the opposite of the current situation. Right now, teams want to go to OT because they are guaranteed a point and can still earn full points. If you can’t earn the full number of points by winning in OT, you don’t want the game to go to OT.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I honestly think the problem with the points system is awarding too many points. Points are like currency and by adding extra points to the standings, it devalues the worth of a point. Make every point worth more.

I still prefer 2 points for a regulation or OT win (normal 5-on-5 OT for 10 min), and 0 points for the loser.

One point for a shootout win, and 0 points for the loser. Loser always gets 0 points, winning in a skill competition gets you 1 point. Shoot out wins shouldn't have the same value as a regular win. If they are intent on keeping 3-on-3 OT, then make it worth only one point as well. If you fail to win under the regular game rules, then it shouldn't be considered a full win in the standings.

I think this argument actually works against the current system...having some games award 3 points while others only award 2 is more 'devaluing'.

Getting a game to OT and losing is worth 50% as much as winning in regulation. Winning in a shoot out is worth 100% as much as winning in regulation.

Wouldn't it be better to change those numbers to 33% and 67%?

[Snuffleupagus]

3 on 3 no time limit with no backing up out of any zone.

or

5 on 5 with no goalie but goals only count in the offensive zone...j/k