Idea for OT

[OkimLom]

Huh, you learn something every day. Thanks for the link.

no problem.

 

[OkimLom]

I heard it watching a game, I'll try to look this up to see what I can find to confirm.

Found it, though it's from 2015-2016, so not sure if it still applies:

Board of Governors approves 2015-16 rules changes

EDIT: It appears this is still in the rules for this year.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf

Rules 84.2:

84.2 Overtime – Regular-season – Extra Attacker - A team shall be allowed to pull its goalkeeper in favor of an additional skater in the overtime period. However, should that team lose the game during the time in which the goalkeeper has been removed, it would forfeit the automatic point gained in the tie at the end of regulation play, except if the goalkeeper has been removed at the call of a delayed penalty against the other team. Should the goalkeeper proceed to his bench for an extra attacker due to a delayed penalty call against the opposing team, and should the non-offending team shoot the puck directly into their own goal, the game shall be over and the team that was to be penalized declared the winner. Once the goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker in overtime during the regular-season, he must wait for the next stoppage of play before returning to his position. He cannot change “on the fly.” If he does, a bench minor penalty shall be assessed for having an ineligible player.

 

[GaryPoppins]

I think the majority dislike the concept of three points being awarded when a game goes to OT and that going back to the original OT format would see teams playing safe in OT to make sure they get a point.

An alternative format which would decide a winner in a less gimmicky way than 3 on 3 or a shootout.

In OT, each team would get a chance to win the game on the PP. If both teams score or both teams do not score, it then goes to a sudden death format. The team that scored first in regulation would get the first crack at it. Maybe they get two or three chances each before the game is declared a tie.

Kind of a cool idea. Having said that, 3 on 3 absolutely is a ton of fun to watch.

 

[ZeroPucksGiven]

10 minutes 4 on 4... if it's tied it's tied. 2 points for a win 1 for a tie 0 for a loss

Doesn't matter how long you play at Even Strength, the coaches will coach the risk taking out of this.
They could play another 20 min 4 on 4 and 1 team may not score

 

[Machinehead]

5 minutes 4v4 or 5v5, I don't really care, and then 3v3 until somebody wins.

 

[Summer Rose]

I actually don't dislike your idea of alternating power plays in overtime. Main thing I don't like is 3 point games. I also prefer ties to shootouts, but I have learned to accept that the NHL is never bringing ties back.

 

[Name Nameless]

I don't dislike 3 points being awarded in total when a game goes to overtime. The only thing weird, is this is one more than when a game is decided in regulation. But I guess the point is, this way, the play-off spots are clinched later, and there is less pointless(ha) games. So it's ok.

On a side-note, those tables you are making, looks totally mumbo-jumbo for at least some of us euros.

"This team is 5, four and six" and so on. Don't even separate between regulation wins and overtime wins. Totally confusing. And a high last number is somewhat better than a high middle number. You need at least four columns: RW, OT (and SO) wins, OT (and SO) loss, and RL. Oh well.

Back to topic: 3 on 3 hockey are pure gold btw. To replace it with something "less" gimmicky, no thanks.

 

[IceNeophyte]

I think the majority dislike the concept of three points being awarded when a game goes to OT and that going back to the original OT format would see teams playing safe in OT to make sure they get a point.

An alternative format which would decide a winner in a less gimmicky way than 3 on 3 or a shootout.

In OT, each team would get a chance to win the game on the PP. If both teams score or both teams do not score, it then goes to a sudden death format. The team that scored first in regulation would get the first crack at it. Maybe they get two or three chances each before the game is declared a tie.

Why reward the teams with better power play? Thats no more fair than rewarding the teams with the best penalty shooters. 3v3 may not be completely fair, but I love that action so much I'm good with it. I wish they would dump shootout and go to playoff format all yeat.

 

[tony d]

As I've said more than once around here it should be:

2 pts. for a win
1 pt. for a shootout loss
0 pts. for an overtime loss

 

[Name Nameless]

As I've said more than once around here it should be:

2 pts. for a win
1 pt. for a shootout loss
0 pts. for an overtime loss

Will give some incredible cowardly play in the OT, IMHO. Not always, but sometimes.

 

[MNNumbers]

Well, here we go again...

In all truth, this is what happens:

The current system (2-2-1-0) does exactly ONE thing. It rewards teams for going to OT. This is clear because, the OT and SO are essentially luck-of-the-draw. Take, for example, the hypothetical example of a team who plays 82 OT games, and wins half of them. This is, by definition, a .500 team. Yet, in the standings, they have 123 points, and win the Presidents Cup. Thus, something is wrong with the system.

However, the BOG has no desire or incentive to change the system, because most fans aren't looking that closely at the results of the system, and the present system hides the OT wins within the regular Wins column, and thus gives the fans of each time the idea that their team is better than it actually is. This is the NUMBER ONE reason that the system will NOT be changed.

As far as other arguments:
The current system doesn't keep standings any closer. A 3-2-1-0 system would allow teams to gain 3 points in a game, so even though they were further behind, they could catch up more quickly.

"You can't make a win worth more than 2 points!! What about the history of the league??!" Wins aren't worth what they should be anyway. The average game is worth 2.25 points now, because one in 4 games goes to OT. But, you don't see anyone pro-rating point totals to make up for that.

What should be higher priority? Take your pick....Some say numerical consistency, and argue that all games should be worth 2 pts, or 3 pts.
Some say 'winning' should be valued in order to encourage offensive, rather than defensive play.
Some say that 5v5 records most clearly show who might win in the playoffs.

All of these result in a different favorite system. The fans who are the most vocal can't agree as to what the most important thing is, so how would you expect the BOG to respond and change anything.

The truth is: It won't change for a long long time, until something else comes along that makes the BOG think that more $$ is available if they use a different system. That's the bottom line

 

[HunterSThompson]

2 points for a win 0 points for a loss and -1 points for each team in a tie. That'll create some 3 on 3 desperation.

 

[ES]

2 points for a win 0 points for a loss and -1 points for each team in a tie. That'll create some 3 on 3 desperation.

In that situation you would like to allow a goal in the closing seconds, especially in interconference matchups.

 

[nturn06]

I think the majority dislike the concept of three points being awarded when a game goes to OT and that going back to the original OT format would see teams playing safe in OT to make sure they get a point.

An alternative format which would decide a winner in a less gimmicky way than 3 on 3 or a shootout.

In OT, each team would get a chance to win the game on the PP. If both teams score or both teams do not score, it then goes to a sudden death format. The team that scored first in regulation would get the first crack at it. Maybe they get two or three chances each before the game is declared a tie.

Or play 5 on 5, but replace the nets by soccer nets...

 

[TheSituation]

10 min. OT. I think the PA will eventually cave in. 3 on 3 hockey brings some of the most heart stopping thrilling moments that the game can provide.

 

[nturn06]

In that situation you would like to allow a goal in the closing seconds, especially in interconference matchups.

You mean somthing like this:
Barbados 4–2 Grenada (1994 Caribbean Cup qualification) - Wikipedia

 

[Hivemind]

The OT point system is dumb, but 3-on-3 OT is great.

 

[Flukeshot]

What's the percentage of games going to overtime and to shoot out from last season?

 

[DEVILS130]

3 on 3 is as good as it's gonna get imo. It's not as gimmicky as a shootout and will result in more OT wins than 4 on 4. Only minor tweak I would make is go 10 minutes.

 

[Pyrophorus]

One team gets a point in a game where they lost. The winning team gets the same amount of points they would normally get for winning a game.

Since the next sentence is about precedence, so is the bolded. All teams have always been awarded a point after the game was tied after 60 mins, since the advent of standings in the NHL.

 

[Nizdizzle]

Since the next sentence is about precedence, so is the bolded. All teams have always been awarded a point after the game was tied after 60 mins, since the advent of standings in the NHL.

The game isn't a tie. There is no possibility of the game ending in a tie. The game has a winner and a loser. For me its more an issue of 3-point games not making sense, but a team is also getting a point in a game they lost. I don't think calling it a loser point is that unprecedented.

I personally don't care all that much about it either way, because it is what it is. I just don't get why people get in such a huff about it being referred to as a loser point.

 

[Last Gleaming]

What's the percentage of games going to overtime and to shoot out from last season?

296 games tied after regulation out of 1271 (23.3%). 193 decided in OT (15.2% of all games). So, 103 shootouts last year (8.1%).