Have NHL fans had enough of the shootout?

[Caps2Fan]

Id rather watch a 3 minute tie breaker to give some closure to the game so i didn't just waste watching 65 minutes for a tie game. And unless you can think of a better tie breaker then a shootout? Flip a coin at the end of regulation? I mean im sure they will never go to a 2 pts or 0 system anyways but id prefer it over the participation point.

I halfway agree with getting rid of the loser point, but not if the game makes it to a shootout. If you lose in OT, you get 0 points, if you lose in a shootout, you get 1. Losing out on any points at all, after playing 65 minutes to a draw, based on a few 1 on 0's, sucks.

I don't really understand the loser point when making it to overtime. What about making it to overtime and losing is better than losing in regulation?

Admittedly, I did not read through this entire thread, so I'm not sure this topic has been covered. For those that are proponents of the 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3 OT set up, how do you feel about 3 on 2 power plays? I can't imagine a situation where that isn't ridiculous. I'm not against the 3 on 3 set up per say, just would have some concerns with it. I definitely think there should be 10 minute overtimes. Seems like such a simple way to increase ROW wins.

 

[Seath The Scaleless]

If it was any good, they would use it in the playoffs...

Pretty much this. I mean, playoff spots have determined via the shootout, so why not a playoff series? Because it's terrible. Abolish it.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

It's a million times better than a tie and sudden death OT is (rightly) never going to happen in the regular season.

 

[carparkno1]

Islanders fan. 3on3 is the way forward.

We rule shootouts but even I don't love them

 

[flyingkiwi]

I think the three point system is a good idea. Regulation and maybe also OT wins rewarded with 3-0 points, with the SO 2-1. If hockey was a higher/more frequent scoring game like perhaps football, Rugby, or basketball, then ties would fit better.

And I know this point has been briefly addressed, but as long as the SO draws in the casual fans and creates excitement and therfore money, it will stay in the NHL. I've only been watching for a season and a bit and I love the hockey, but first and foremost it's about the entertainment and the money. Never before have I seen a live game interrupted and overlaid with so much advertising (don't watch any other North American pro sport). If the NHL thinks that the current combination of ad revenue, actual quality of hockey, and the excitement of the shootout is the most effective money maker, then I can't see the SO making way for a "fairer" way of deciding games.

Perhaps I'm being a bit too cynical, but I think it's an important perspective to consider. Or maybe I'm just used to having little ads in live sport

 

[Car2014]

Never before have I seen a live game interrupted and overlaid with so much advertising (don't watch any other North American pro sport).

Compared to the NBA and even more so the NFL and the MLB, it's actually nothing, but compared to soccer or rugby, it definitely is. Still, I find it more bearable than the NBA. Watching the NFL is unbearable because of all the breaks and baseball just bores me (not that I understand the rules...).

As a European who grew up watching soccer, I fail to understand why people dislike draws so much. It's certainly not a waste of time if the game was good. A bad game won't be saved by SO either. Having SO during the regular season, but not during the play-offs makes no sense to me. But then I'm used to sports only producing winners in OT/extra time or SO/penalties when they really need to, i.e. during the knock-out stages or play-offs.

 

[jnk96]

I think the three point system is a good idea. Regulation and maybe also OT wins rewarded with 3-0 points, with the SO 2-1.

This is the best option IMO. 3-0 for a regulation win, 2-1 for a OT/SO win. Every game 3 points are awarded. Not sometimes 2 and sometimes 3 (that's the biggest issue IMO). And I really like shootouts for entertainment so I don't want them to not be in the game anymore. Just adjust the points.

 

[CanadaIsIrrelevant]

I say YES. Because Red Wings suck at shootouts
We play well a whole game but can't break the tie and go to shootout and lose because Howard can't stop a beach ball on this blocker side.
Everybody knows it.

 

[HockeyFan100]

They're better than ties that's for sure

I mean, honestly... As long as shootouts never see the playoffs, who cares?

 

[flyingkiwi]

Compared to the NBA and even more so the NFL and the MLB, it's actually nothing, but compared to soccer or rugby, it definitely is. Still, I find it more bearable than the NBA. Watching the NFL is unbearable because of all the breaks and baseball just bores me (not that I understand the rules...).

Why would you even interrupt basketball? I can understand it in sports like American football - you've got a set number of downs to score. But sports where possession is constantly contested and every player has to play both offensively and defensively shouldn't be unnecessarily interrupted by ad breaks.

I don't mean to get off topic and I'll stop now. But you ever wonder how sports like hockey would have developed without the influence of TV production, or just how much that kind of stuff has influenced the sport itself? How it could have been different. Maybe we wouldn't have the shootout?

 

[CanadaIsIrrelevant]

Why can't they change it to continuous OT with 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 for 5 min switch side after 5.

Only award penalty shot on breakaway trips or something.

 

[Car2014]

Why would you even interrupt basketball? I can understand it in sports like American football - you've got a set number of downs to score. But sports where possession is constantly contested and every player has to play both offensively and defensively shouldn't be unnecessarily interrupted by ad breaks.

I don't mean to get off topic and I'll stop now. But you ever wonder how sports like hockey would have developed without the influence of TV production, or just how much that kind of stuff has influenced the sport itself? How it could have been different. Maybe we wouldn't have the shootout?

It's just for the ad breaks, that even includes the high number of time-outs. Eurobasket doesn't have that many breaks, they actually manage to finish their games in less than two hours, just like soccer, rugby or Formula 1. Heck, when I started watching, eurobasket was still played in halves.

That'd actually be a nice topic for a new thread, I think. We can clearly see the changes in basketball (NBA v eurobasket), (beach) volleyball, North American motor sport compared to e.g. the European one.

We can also see some big cultural differences there. Just look at Aussie Rules. 3 hours of almost non-stop action with only short breaks in between. I don't want to know how long that would take if there were as many breaks as during an NFL game...

 

[Bones Malone]

I despise ties. I'm not a fan of wasting 3-4 hours and several hundred dollars to watch a draw. I don't think shootouts are the greatest thing to decide a game either, but they do get it done and in a timely manner and are exciting. I'd rather they play continuous OT though, like they do in basketball and baseball. Football doesn't really need it because they get maybe one tie all year for the whole league. I find it interesting that people who claim a shootout is a skills competition, but advocate 3 on 3 OT. I wonder which situation is more prevalent in a game per 60 min, a penalty shot or a 3 on 3?

 

[Brooklanders*]

I'm kinda tired of the shootout but I don't have a better solution. I still dont get why the league doesn't play a 10 minute OT. I think if they make the nets wider it would also effect ties.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

10 min 4vs4. I like it.

 

[Curufinwe]

Philly's shootout record is a joke. So yes, get rid of them.

 

[Coaster]

As long as shootouts are not in the playoffs, I have no problem with the current system. The 3on3 idea does sound interesting though. Absolutely NO ties, that's for sure.

 

[probertrules24]

I was never a fan of shootouts to begin with and now that my team is horrible at them they can't be removed fast enough. To me a tie game is actually a better representitive of the actual game because that's what occured between the two teams. Neither team could beat the other.

I'm in favor of 4 on4 for 5 minutes then going to 3 on 3 for another 3. Can't remeber which game it was but the 3 on 3 happened with Detroit and it was a lot of fun to watch. There was a pretty good chess match with the lines being deployed when one coach would put out 3 forwards and the other would try and counter. It made for pretty exciting play.

 

[NyQuil]

I've gotten used to the shootout.

 

[Warden of the North]

Yes. Id rather ties

 

[TheTimTamSlammerMan]

It's such a ****** way to win.

 

[ShootIt]

They're better than ties that's for sure

I mean, honestly... As long as shootouts never see the playoffs, who cares?

This.

I don't like them, but they are better than ties.

 

[CrashBartley]

Absolutely. I've hated them from the beginning. It's a ridiculous way to end a team game with a one on one skills competition. When you were a kid, did you ever yell, next shootout goal wins! No, you yelled next goal wins, because even a kid understands you play and win as a team.
That being said, it's not going to change, so at least please get rid of the loser point. If every game has to end with a winner, the standings should be the same as MLB. Wins and losses. That's all. Then every game has the same value. Then as a tiebreaker it's who has the most regulation wins, O/T wins, shootout wins then coaches shoe size.

 

[Burke the Legend]

Shootout is garbage and NOT hockey

 

[The Missing Piece]

4-4 for 5 minutes, then 3-3 for 5 minutes