News Article: Death To The Shootout Update: Support for 3-on-3 overtime increasing for NHL GMs

[Ollie Weeks]

Let me ask it this way then:
How many people in the history of the world while on their way to a sporting event said "Man, I really hope the game ends in a tie tonight!" ?

Doesn't it sound catchier this way:

"Man, I really hope we can match up to this admittedly superior team and come out of here with something!"

Or after:

"I have to give it to the other team, we were too evenly matched to exploit each other for any prolonged amount of time. Well fought."

Nobody really wants a tie, but they want success. Sometimes you have to live with what you can get. Not a bad lesson at all, if we were to circle back around to the pre school sports analogy.

 

[The Tikkanen]

Let me ask it this way then:
How many people in the history of the world while on their way to a sporting event said "Man, I really hope the game ends in a tie tonight!" ?

Cubs fans?

 

[KINGS17]

3-on-3 is every bit as gimmicky as 4-on-4. Once you get away from the normal standard of play (5-on-5) on a permanent, non-penalized basis, it's gimmicky.

At least 3-on-3 still has elements of team play, unlike a shootout.

That all said, I'd support 4-on-4, as long as there were no loser points.

Also, I suppose if a team commits a penalty during 3-on-3 play, the other team would get a 4-on-3 advantage.

I think you would see many teams play a very cautious game even in a 4-on-4 situation if there were no bonus point for getting to OT. Besides, the NHL is never getting rid of the bonus point. It keeps more teams in the playoff race deeper into the season, and that's good for attendance.

 

[KINGS17]

Cubs fans?

Raider fans?

USC fans?

 

[Butch 19]

I've been saying this should be brought in for years, even before the shootout was discussed. not so much here, just in general.

Do five minutes of five on five, five minutes of 4- on 4, five minutes of 3-on-3 and if it's still tied, call it a draw. The whole reason for the shootout was to many teams were sitting back, playing for a tie.

If they can play for a tie through 15 minutes of overtime, most of it in much more wide open situations, then do it. If it's still a huge problem, eliminate ties and give teams zero points.

Whatever they decide, they should get rid of loser points. Never understood how they thought it was a good idea to give teams points just because they made it through 60 minutes tied.

They used to say this about tie games as well...


hmmm, this is exactly what they used to do with tie games. Well, they gave them both 1 point, just like they do right now,... in 2013!

 

[Butch 19]

I'd rather just see 10 minutes of 4-on-4, then a shootout. I think that would cut down on the number of shootouts pretty drastically, while still not having ties. Also, we wouldn't have to discuss how gimmicky 3-on-3 would be.

The ice already is in terrible shape for 5 minutes of OT, now you want to extend it to a possible 10 minutes?

5 min OT, then SO. The league has it right, right now.

 

[johnjm22]

The few times I've watched 3 on 3, it's been boring as hell.

Terrible idea IMO.

 

[onlyalad]

Let me ask it this way then:
How many people in the history of the world while on their way to a sporting event said "Man, I really hope the game ends in a tie tonight!" ?

World cup qualifing games

 

[King'sPawn]

After thinking about it, the 3-on-3 seems a bit silly, especially since the game could still end in a shootout.

The proposed system won't eliminate shootouts, just reduce the number of them.

So it just seems like a waste of time.

 

[mbar]

Let me ask it this way then:
How many people in the history of the world while on their way to a sporting event said "Man, I really hope the game ends in a tie tonight!" ?

Depending on the situation, a tie can be a great result and fans (maybe not you) are usually smart enough to understand that.

If the Calgary Flame came to Staples down the stretch last year when we were damn near invincible at home and managed to tie the Kings, they (and their fans) would probably feel pretty good about that.

It's far more reflective of reality then if they get a BS gimmick shootout win. To get a win they'd have to earn a real win.

 

[santiclaws]

The proposed system won't eliminate shootouts, just reduce the number of them.

So it just seems like a waste of time.

No thing which reduces the number of shootouts is a waste of time.

 

[onlyalad]

No thing which reduces the number of shootouts is a waste of time.

Ok 3 on 3 but one guy can not play in his own defensive zone. So every possession is a 3 on 2 powerplay however if you get it out you are most likely on a breakaway. There has to be limits on how far you will get away from the way the game is played.

 

[King'sPawn]

No thing which reduces the number of shootouts is a waste of time.

So you would be okay with ties then?

 

[King RAZZ]

The ******* shootout took out the option of being a fan win or tie... Just bring back the tie (after ten minutes of OT) and lose the loser point...

 

[Buddy The Elf]

I'm going to come up with a whole list of ideas to do away with the shootout and avoid ties. Here is my list so far:

1) A basketball hoop is brought onto the ice and each team will select one player to participate in a game of horse. The winner of the game of horse will win the game.

2) At the end of 60 minutes, everyone in attendance or watching on TV is allowed 2 minutes to text in their vote for the winner a la talent shows like American Idol.

3) One player from each team will select a number from a hat. That number will correspond with a weapon on a wall. The two players will then take their weapons from the wall and fight to the death with their weapons.

4) Each team will come up with a routine for a talent show. The winner of the talent show will win the game.

5) Each team will select three players to compete in a staring contest. Best 2 out of 3 wins the game.

6) A platter full of Nathan's hot dogs will be wheeled onto the ice. Both teams will engage in a hot dog eating contest. The team to eat the most hot dogs is the winner.

See, there are a lot better ideas out there to end games other than shootouts.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I really like that hot dog eating contest idea, though I think the Kings will come out on the losing end of that with the loss of Penner.

 

[onlyalad]

For number three the league will make an 87 rule. The number 87 may not be placed in a hat. Got to keep the face safe

 

[scryan]

Absolutely. Sunday's prospects game proved it. A 6-1 shellacking of the Ducks but yet the Ducks won the shootout. Get rid of the shootout. It was fun while it lasted. The experiment is over. At the same time, I agree with Dingo. **** ties!

Prospect game didn't really prove it, the goalie from the shoot out only played 1 period of the game and was pretty lucky not to let one in a couple times. More then one puck bounce behind him over the back of his knees with out going in during his period of play.


I'd rather have a shootout then ties, even if its not a perfect solution.
If we start doing power play stuff are you getting rid of sudden death?
10 min 4-4 then 5 of 3-3 then shootout... About another periods worth of play if it goes long.

 

[Buddy The Elf]

I really like that hot dog eating contest idea, though I think the Kings will come out on the losing end of that with the loss of Penner.

For number three the league will make an 87 rule. The number 87 may not be placed in a hat. Got to keep the face safe

I'm glad people are receptive to my ideas. Good luck getting that idiot commissioner or any of the GM's to listen.

 

[kingsfan]

I like ties. It's a fairer reflection of what happened in a game then giving points to teams that win shootout gimmicks.

I'm open to more overtime or 3v3 overtime but I will chose a tie over a shootout every day of the week.

If we keep shootouts at the very least we need to fix the point system so they are not worth the same as a real win. 3-2-1-0 point system is the way to go.

I'm ok with ties too, just not to the level that was seen before the shootout. When a team has 15 ties, that's to much. That's why I'd like to see an extended OT (just not like the playoff format).

I really like that hot dog eating contest idea, though I think the Kings will come out on the losing end of that with the loss of Penner.

Penner would be able to right his own ticket. The Rangers would sign him and Lundqvist and just win 82 games 1-0 in the hot dog contest. If it was a panckaes contest the team would be invincible.

 

[kingsfan]

They used to say this about tie games as well...


hmmm, this is exactly what they used to do with tie games. Well, they gave them both 1 point, just like they do right now,... in 2013!

That was my point. The shootout has solved nothing.

 

[Butch 19]

That was my point. The shootout has solved nothing.

It's added entertainment.

....which is a lot better than 2 teams going into a shell with 5 - 7 minutes left in the 3rd of a tie game, which happened pretty much all the time. And OT didn't solve that either.

 

[kingsfan]

It's added entertainment.

....which is a lot better than 2 teams going into a shell with 5 - 7 minutes left in the 3rd of a tie game, which happened pretty much all the time. And OT didn't solve that either.

I didn't say it didn't add entertainment. That's not the same thing as solving the original problem it was supposed to solve, all the games going to overtime.

 

[Fishhead]

The shootout is exciting sometimes, but it does absolutely nothing to determine which team is better that game, which is the whole point of having a game in the first place.

When they first started the shootout with the introduction of the cap, the gap between the playoff teams and the non-playoff teams was still wide enough to where a few points over the season from the shootout didn't really matter. Since the cap has settled in, parity is such that a few points in today's NHL can mean the difference between home ice in the playoffs and missing them entirely. I was OK with it when they started it, but now it's having far too great of an effect on the standings for my comfort. This is probably why GM's are discussing it.

I think changing the point system to reduce the weight of shootout points on the standings must be done if they keep the shootout. If they are after excitement, 3v3 is by far more riveting for me than a bunch of penalty shots. Either way I don't like the point system. My favorite solution would be 5v5 followed by 5 minutes of 4v4 and 5 minutes of 3v3. If no winner, give them both a point and on to the next one. Yea, it's a tie, but it's a well earned point at that stage. It's not like teams can sit back 3v3 and play for the tie, there is way too much open space and it would only result in them losing faster.

 

[KingsCorona]

I like the 3 on 3 idea much better than shootouts, and I'd also kind of like to see the 4 on 4 period extended to 10 mins. 4 on 4 is quick and drastically increases scoring chances; I think a few extra minutes in that format would, by itself, significantly decrease the number of games that go to SO/3 on 3.