Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Bring Back Bucky, Dec 13, 2004.
Hi, Shootout, yes or no???
I'm on the fence. I don't think they're needed, but it could add some excitement.
It's like the NBA deciding games with a slam dunk contest or MLB going to Homerun Derby instead of Extra Innings
No, it's not.
Hockey is a TEAM game. To lose a TEAM game by means of a silly drill used at the end of a Mite's practice to sharpen a goalie is RIDICULOUS! It would be the same as the NFL deciding OT games by having a quarterback throw a ball through a tire on a tree branch! Or the NBA saying "First one to make 10 free throws wins!" It is NO way to end a game!
So far 85% of you cheeky devils don't support this idea. Just out of curiosity, who WAS asked for an opinion on this matter, badminton fans??? So many ways to improve the game and they came up with this???
its kool in the minors, but not in the nhl
Or like the World Cup of Soccer deciding games with a shootout after a few overtime periods... oh wait, that's what they do.
As much as I don't like shootouts, comparing them to a slamdunk contest is silly.
IMO overtime is as exciting as it gets and I don't feel snubbed after a tie, I just think it's trying to address a problem (lack of excitment) by putting a pretty flower at the top instead of going to its roots (obstruction).
I'd like 20 minutes of OT, followed by a shootout.
No more points for ties.
It's a team sport, not a "who has the 5 most skilled offensive weapons" sport.
Shootouts are bad, mmkay?
Don't compare regular NHL season shootouts with the knock out system of the World cup of soccer. It's not even close the same thing.
Although I'm aginst the shootouts, I would tolerate them as long as they are just part of the regular season. Having them in the playoffs would RUIN the game of hockey! You remember 2003 Toronto-Philadelphia series? Imagine that series being decided by shootout. Today, nobody would remember it and talk about it. There is nothing better then interesting, nail-bitting tripple overtime in the playoffs.
Yes it is. Its an individual compentition..no teamwork. It is EXACTLY like that.
My answer is of course NO...and im glad to see the majority is in favor of no.
No. They're not necessary, and they won't be exciting.
On the fence. I love shootouts. Its great in soccer (damn Portugal) but not sure it would work in hockey. If there were to be a shootout it should come after a shootout. Whoever compared it to a slamdunk contest has been smoking to much wacky backy. Slamdunk is all about skill, explosive power and height. Shootouts don't all ways favour the skilled player.
They will lose their appeal in a very short amount of time. Ask the Swedes.
That I agree with.
I don't want playoff shootouts. Just regular season, because I hate ties.
I don't know if you read my entire post or not but I agree with that statement completely, I hate the idea of shootouts in the regular season, let alone the playoffs.
I was simply pointing out that shootouts are not like a slam dunk competition to determine the victor of a game.
Leave the shootouts to the minor leagues. They don't belong in NHL games, assuming we see NHL games again. Believe me, halfway through the season, we'll be getting sick of them. When the league introduced hurry-up faceoffs and reduced game times, I thought they should simply extend the 4-on-4 OT to ten minutes.
I don't know why ties are viewed as such a horrible part of the game in the first place. It's no the ties that are the problem, it's awarding teams for not winning, and "playing for a tie/OT". I don't feel the least bit cheated if I'm at a game and it ends in a tie as long as it's good hockey for 60 minutes. What gets to me, is when the last 20 minutes of a game is played with all 10 players in the neutral zone. I think the problem could be solved by simply not rewarding points for anything but a win. If you lose...0 points, if you tie...0 points, if you win...1/2/3(whatever number you want) points! There you go, problem solved, teams start playing to win not to simply "not lose". No need for a skills competition after every game.
Shootouts really do nothing in the end except for add excitement to casual fans. The more expensive team is going to win in a shootout 9 times out of 10, and those are already the ones at the top of the standings(sans Rangers). It just gives the better teams more points and keeps the non playoff teams where they are.
I think they should just keep it in the minor leagues so those teams can build fan bases if it really helps marketing that much. Minor league games never come close to selling out, and it would really help the sport if those got more support.
I agree completely with you, which is why I suggest the NHL abandone the point system altogether for the standings. Instead, base the standings on the number of wins, not just the wins over losses.
1) It allows the teams who can finish off their opponents the most to advance into the playoffs the easiest.
2) It discourages teams from sitting back and settling for a tie, because unless they win it only hurts them.
3) It's still just as bad as now if you end up with a tie, because nothing is settled.
I think it'd change the whole mindset of the game from "can't lose" to "must win", where defense is more heavily associated with "can't lose" mentality and offense if more associated with "must win".
Back on topic, I say no to the shootout, no questions asked. I don't care who win's a shootout, but I care who wins a 60-65 minute hockey game. The two are not the same thing.