Overtime

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Overtime

    Like most, I hate the loser point.  I also don't like the league talking about playing 3 on 3 for a second 5 minute OT, or even a longer OT.  So tell me if you like this idea:

    If the score is tied with 3 minutes left in regulation, teams skate 4 aside for the remainder of the game.  

    This would make it more difficult for teams to "play for the point" and would also showcase the league's talent during crunch time.  I really can't think of any drawbacks to this plan, can you?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: Overtime

    Forget Overtime. The NHL has it all wrong in the regular season.

    Here is the solution:

    Have the shootout at the beginning of the game. A Shootout to begin all games.

    Whomever wins the shootout wins the game, and gets the 2 points, if it finishes in a draw after 60 minutes.

    Less wear and tear on the players, especially the stars, and the fans get to go home sooner and catch-up on some sleep.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Overtime

    I like the 4 on 4 idea AND the 3 on 3 idea.  Anything but the shootout, and I want a winner.  

    I just want that winner to be determined by hockey, even if it is whittled down to 3 players a side.  3 on 3 is still hockey -- offense, defense, passing, speed, checking, strategy.  Much better than some little individual skill competition.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from hangnail. Show hangnail's posts

    Re: Overtime

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like the 4 on 4 idea AND the 3 on 3 idea.  Anything but the shootout, and I want a winner.  

    I just want that winner to be determined by hockey, even if it is whittled down to 3 players a side.  3 on 3 is still hockey -- offense, defense, passing, speed, checking, strategy.  Much better than some little individual skill competition.

    [/QUOTE]

    The one thing I don't like about 3 on 3 is if there's a penalty, then it's 3 on 2...is that really hockey?  The pk team then has only one option for a pass...

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: Overtime

    In response to hangnail's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    The one thing I don't like about 3 on 3 is if there's a penalty, then it's 3 on 2...is that really hockey?  The pk team then has only one option for a pass...

    [/QUOTE]


    In that case I think any penalty should receive a penalty shot.

    OK, it's bringing back the skills competition again, but it should pretty much keep things clean in OT.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Overtime

    In response to hangnail's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I like the 4 on 4 idea AND the 3 on 3 idea.  Anything but the shootout, and I want a winner.  

    I just want that winner to be determined by hockey, even if it is whittled down to 3 players a side.  3 on 3 is still hockey -- offense, defense, passing, speed, checking, strategy.  Much better than some little individual skill competition.

    [/QUOTE]

    The one thing I don't like about 3 on 3 is if there's a penalty, then it's 3 on 2...is that really hockey?  The pk team then has only one option for a pass...

    [/QUOTE]

    If a penalty happens in that scenario, I would suggest adding a player to the other team so the PP is 4 on 3 instead.  I know it can reduce things down to something like pond hockey, but I still like it better than a skills competition.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Overtime

    I don't particularly like the shoot-out.  Saying 3-on-3 is more real hockey than it is aesthetic, in my mind.  How many penalty shots a year compared to seconds spent 3-on-3?  Both are really rare in actual games.

    I'd be fine if they just tweaked the point system.  No extra points for a shoot-out win, just a tally in a SOW column to be used as a tiebreaker.  A last tiebreaker.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Overtime

    I just don't think the time limit of 5 minutes is long enough. Make it 10Mins and you will see less shootouts. I just don't feel like 3 on 3 is real, more like the clown chasing the dwarfs at the Circus.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: Overtime

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't particularly like the shoot-out.  Saying 3-on-3 is more real hockey than it is aesthetic, in my mind.  How many penalty shots a year compared to seconds spent 3-on-3?  Both are really rare in actual games.

    I'd be fine if they just tweaked the point system.  No extra points for a shoot-out win, just a tally in a SOW column to be used as a tiebreaker.  A last tiebreaker.

    [/QUOTE]

    I like this idea. You want a point? go nuts in OT.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Overtime

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't particularly like the shoot-out.  Saying 3-on-3 is more real hockey than it is aesthetic, in my mind.  How many penalty shots a year compared to seconds spent 3-on-3?  Both are really rare in actual games.

    I'd be fine if they just tweaked the point system.  No extra points for a shoot-out win, just a tally in a SOW column to be used as a tiebreaker.  A last tiebreaker.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think 3 on 3 is bit of a side show too, but it's still better.  It's hockey, not just shooting and goaltending.

    If you think about the actual components of hockey and the skills needed to win, it has so much more than the shootout:

     

    Shoot out

    3 on 3

    Offense

    Yes, one player

    Yes

    Defense

    No, just goalie

    Yes

    Checking

    No

    Yes

    Passing

    No

    Yes

    Shooting

    Yes

    Yes

    Positioning

    No

    Yes

    Speed/Skating

    Not really

    Yes

    Goaltending

    Yes

    Yes

    Positioning

    No

    Yes

    Line Changes/Roster Depth

    Not really

    Yes

    You would win games by being better at hockey, not just some specialized little skill set.  I also like Sandog's suggestion of going longer with the OT.  4 on 4 for 5 minutes, 3 on 3 for 5 minutes.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from gaaucoin. Show gaaucoin's posts

    Re: Overtime

    In response to hangnail's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Like most, I hate the loser point.  I also don't like the league talking about playing 3 on 3 for a second 5 minute OT, or even a longer OT.  So tell me if you like this idea:

    If the score is tied with 3 minutes left in regulation, teams skate 4 aside for the remainder of the game.  

    This would make it more difficult for teams to "play for the point" and would also showcase the league's talent during crunch time.  I really can't think of any drawbacks to this plan, can you?

    [/QUOTE]

    I think they oughtta go back to the old scoring...

    2 points for a win,  0 points for a loss,  and 1 point for a tie. If there is a tie, so be it. I understand about having a 'clear cut' winner, but the 'loser point' is really lousy. Lengthen the OT period...if after 10 or even 20 minutes there is no winner, it goes down as a tie and 1 point each.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Overtime

    Im still hesistant for 3 on 3. I understand its a big step up from the shootout, but why not just extend the OT?

    I think it should be 5 on 5 for 10 minutes, then 4 on 4 for 5 mins. After that....no idea.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Overtime

    Wow, what a mess -- I tried to insert a table.

    Here:

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dave24. Show Dave24's posts

    Re: Overtime

    I like 10min OT at 4x4, with the long change. Would love to see game values upped to 3 points for a W (regulation or OT) and 2 for a shootout winner and 1 for a shootout loser. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Overtime

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Wow, what a mess -- I tried to insert a table.

    Here:

    [/QUOTE]

    I was wondering what the heck you were trying to do.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Overtime

    In response to DrCC's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I don't particularly like the shoot-out.  Saying 3-on-3 is more real hockey than it is aesthetic, in my mind.  How many penalty shots a year compared to seconds spent 3-on-3?  Both are really rare in actual games.

    I'd be fine if they just tweaked the point system.  No extra points for a shoot-out win, just a tally in a SOW column to be used as a tiebreaker.  A last tiebreaker.

    This along with Fletch's additional player on a OT penalty thought would limit the shootout to what it is a circus act.


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share