Consider this alternative to shootouts

[Cursed Lemon]

If we're going to have a shootout, we should have it at the beginning of the game. Make it a warmup spectacle for the players and fans.

1. The players won't be tired. It's much, MUCH easier to do sick dangles when you're fresh - anyone who has played hockey will know this.

2. The game can end organically. If the game is tied, then the team who lost the shootout will have to play like we want them to play near the end of the game, with hustle/desperation and not just shelling up to get the one point.

 

[Roomtemperature]

A tie is a result. No genuine superiority achieved by either side.

Like kissing one's sister. Why do we want that feeling again?

 

[JoVel]

10 minutes of OT, 3 on 3. Then either a tie or a shootout, wouldn't really matter as most games would be finished on the OT.

 

[Last Gleaming]

Like kissing one's sister. Why do we want that feeling again?

That's rather trite. It's the regular season. We're not about to have unlimited OT all season long, so no need to contrive a winner for the gullible.

My proposal earlier in this thread would keep ties down to around 5% of games. About 4 per team per season. It'd get teams to play with urgency throughout the contest, knowing they have to have a win (regulation/OT) for any gain, just like in the playoffs.

 

[powerstuck]

Trash idea. Hockey is amazing but one of it's faults is traditionalists who want things to be a way because it was a way at one time.

Ties are bad for the game. There is nothing worse than an amazing game being decided in a shootout. If the game just ended with no winner it would be even worse.

Besides, what you described essentially already happens. Each team gets a point for going to OT. If someone wins in OT OR in the shootout they get an extra point.

Ties are bad, but current situation isn't ideal. It doesn't entice teams to ''win''. Most of the time, teams are satisfied to ''leave with a point''.
In my opinion, regulation win should be the best reward something like 3 points.
OT win would be 2 points or even only 1 point.
I wouldn't give any points for an OT loss.

 

[Cor]

3v3 until it ends.

 

[BaseballCoach]

That's rather trite. It's the regular season. We're not about to have unlimited OT all season long, so no need to contrive a winner for the gullible.

My proposal earlier in this thread would keep ties down to around 5% of games. About 4 per team per season. It'd get teams to play with urgency throughout the contest, knowing they have to have a win (regulation/OT) for any gain, just like in the playoffs.

If we want to keep ties down, use the soccer formula. It avoids corruption too.

 

[LamorielloAndSon]

Instead of a shoot out each team is given a designated fighter, the goon that wins the fight wins the game

 

[Cor]

A tie is a result. No genuine superiority achieved by either side.

I never understand the "we need a winner argument" in regards to defending keeping shootouts.

The game is still a tie, there is just a quick gimmick to decide who gets an additional point. It could be a one sided game that ends in a tie, and the team that was dominated the entire time then wins the shootout. I don't know how that is more satisfying than the game ending after a 5/10 minute OT period, and both teams walking away with a point because a goalie stood on his head.

Even if it is a tight game, closely matched, a result ending in a tie accuratley describes the game. Two teams pushed each other to the limits, and neither could out do the other, and both gain a point in the standings.

2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, get rid of the loser point and the shootout. Have a 5 minute overtime period, 10 if the players will do it, and put as many players on the ice as whoever sees fit. 5v5, 4v4, 3v3 doesn't matter. A team wins? Awesome, they get both points. Tie? Both teams get a point.

Want a winner? 5v5, 4v4, or 3v3 until it ends.

 

[AgentBrodeur]

3 v 3 was the perfect solution. Maybe they can expand it to 10 minutes. Also if there is a penalty allow 3 v 2

 

[Roomtemperature]

That's rather trite. It's the regular season. We're not about to have unlimited OT all season long, so no need to contrive a winner for the gullible.

My proposal earlier in this thread would keep ties down to around 5% of games. About 4 per team per season. It'd get teams to play with urgency throughout the contest, knowing they have to have a win (regulation/OT) for any gain, just like in the playoffs.

I don't know why you feel the need to have less entertainment in your entertainment. If you like empty feelings that's great but watch the reaction to an NFL game that ends in a tie. Any pro wrestling match back in the day that went to a double DQ, count out or time limit draw. Its lame and empty. Sports is entertainment its not some world saving important thing. We have 82 games and an easy way to ensure the tie is broken using the purest form of hockey the penatly shot.

 

[4thline]

A tie is a result. No genuine superiority achieved by either side.

Some people like to fool themselves.

 

[ohheyhemsky]

3 vs 3 for 10 minutes. 2 vs 2 for 5.

Then stupid shootouts. Most of the time, I highly doubt it'll make it past the 2 on 2.

 

[LakeLivin]

3 v 3 was the perfect solution. Maybe they can expand it to 10 minutes. Also if there is a penalty allow 3 v 2

I'm all for upping the 3-on-3 to 10 minutes, but little chance the Players Association would agree to that before the next bargaining session, and they'd want something very nice in return.

My fear is that a 3 vs. 2 PP would have an unintended side effect that I'd hate. Refs already seem very hesitant to call penalties in OT, presumably because of how much it tilts the ice in favor of the PP team. Make it 3 vs. 2 and I fear the only things that would be called penalties in OT would be two handed baseball swings to an opponents body, or full tackles that take an opponent to the ice.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Some people like to fool themselves.

Yeah compared to those evenly played games decided by a fluke goal. That really proved who was better.

 

[Voodoo Child]

I think stretching 3 on 3 overtime to ten minutes would end probably about 70% of games without the need for a shootout.

 

[4thline]

Yeah compared to those evenly played games decided by a fluke goal. That really proved who was better.

Fluke's happen in life, flukes happen in sports. You can be cognizant of a deserved result and feel robbed by a fluke, but you know that shit happens. That's different than unnaturally forcing a result.

You cite entertainment- the shootout is equivalent to having an action thriller end with both protagonist and antagonist living to fight another day, but then having the closure fairy pop on screen, abduct both and force them to play russian roulette until only one lives because well, closure right?

 

[4thline]

I think stretching 3 on 3 overtime to ten minutes would end probably about 70% of games without the need for a shootout.

Even 10 of 4 on 4 with a 3-2-1-0 points system (1-1) for a game not resolved after OT would leave very few ties and would get rid random points

 

[Slyfox]

Rework the point system to make it 3 pts for a regulation win and 2 pts for a OT win and increase 3v3 to 10mins.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

I think stretching 3 on 3 overtime to ten minutes would end probably about 70% of games without the need for a shootout.

Actually there was data on this indicating that coaches have basically "coached" the original fun out of 3 v 3. Remember when 3 v 3 was new and it was an orgy of back and forth action? Yea doesn't happen anymore.

More likely to head to a shootout vs have an OT winner, even if it bleeds to 10 mins

 

[Sniper99]

Settle it over a game of Fortnite. The only way to go.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Fluke's happen in life, flukes happen in sports. You can be cognizant of a deserved result and feel robbed by a fluke, but you know that **** happens. That's different than unnaturally forcing a result.

You cite entertainment- the shootout is equivalent to having an action thriller end with both protagonist and antagonist living to fight another day, but then having the closure fairy pop on screen, abduct both and force them to play russian roulette until only one lives because well, closure right?

Its more like you have a gun fight... some close combat hands once in a blue moon and they run out of bullets and they fist fight. Sure no one dies but we get a conclusion. A tie they shrug their shoulders and walk away whistling