Go Wings
Registered User
No nobody wants stupid ties.just go back to 5v5, and let it end in a tie if no one scores.
Just make it 3 on 3 until someone scores, it is as simple as that.
No nobody wants stupid ties.just go back to 5v5, and let it end in a tie if no one scores.
No nobody wants stupid ties.
Just make it 3 on 3 until someone scores, it is as simple as that.
I know it'll never happen, but I want stupid ties.No nobody wants stupid ties.
Just make it 3 on 3 until someone scores, it is as simple as that.
The problem lies in the fact that ties are wholly antithesis to the concept of competition. There should be a winner and a loser. Every contest needs a resolution.I know it'll never happen, but I want stupid ties.
3 on 3 and the shootout involves so many problems. Games not being worth the same number of points. In the third period, it Incentivizes teams to play to get to OT to pick up the loser point, then try and get the second point in OT or shootout. With the evolution of strategies in the shootout, it's become even farther away from anything resembling hockey. Even 3 on 3 has had the fun coached out of it.
I'm an old man yelling at clouds, I know. But I watched 20 years of great hockey that had ties. If no one deserved to win the game, they didn't.
The problem lies in the fact that ties are wholly antithesis to the concept of competition. There should be a winner and a loser. Every contest needs a resolution.
Yeah, huh!There's 70 years of NHL hockey that beg to differ.
An arbitrary skill event deciding a winner and loser is the antithesis of hockey. And awarding a point to a team that lost the game is antithetical to the concept of competition (I don't care what pretzel logic people use, the team that did not win the game gets a point). The team did not win the game but can still move up in the standings.
The regular season is ultimately about getting into the playoffs, where all games end with a winner and a loser to get the ultimate trophy. Some ties in an 82 game season isn't the end of the world.
Neither are some shootouts. And I sincerely disagree with the idea a shootout is the "antithesis" of hockey.Some ties in an 82 game season isn't the end of the world.
ok maybe antithesis is too strong but they're so far removed from the team sport that is hockey.Neither are some shootouts. And I sincerely disagree with the idea a shootout is the "antithesis" of hockey.
Honestly, I hate ties. Such a monumentally boring way to end a hockey game.
Thats fine as long as we keep playing until someone wins in OT. No more shootouts.My argument against the 3 on 3 is that whoever wins the initial faceoff holds possession for 4 out of 5 minutes.
Sudden death is fine. Bring back 4 on 4 because 5 on 5 OT is too often a grind. Make it 10 minutes. If no score then go to 3 on 3.
Since 3 on 3 with one team holding the puck is already boring, why not add a 1 minute shot clock? What's a stoppage and a face-off going to ruin?ok maybe antithesis is too strong but they're so far removed from the team sport that is hockey.
Especially as players have figured out they can come to a near stop, stickhandle a hundred times and deke the goalie in a way they never possible could in a hockey game.
Like I said, I know this is old man yelling at clouds. But all the machinations to get rid of ties have a lot of negative side effects.
Didn't you think that this is a natural when teams and their efforts are equal? Why do you need lottery to artificially decide an event?Neither are some shootouts. And I sincerely disagree with the idea a shootout is the "antithesis" of hockey.
Honestly, I hate ties. Such a monumentally boring way to end a hockey game.
3 on 3 definitely needs something. I'd be more inclined to use the "no backing across the center line once you enter the zone" rule because it's more in the universe of hockey than a shot clock.Since 3 on 3 with one team holding the puck is already boring, why not add a 1 minute shot clock? What's a stoppage and a face-off going to ruin?
Everything's coming up Milhouse!I really hope we win or lose the next game
I think a difference of one point in a game isn't enough to break my hockey immersion, if that is what you are asking.Didn't you think that this is a natural when teams and their efforts are equal? Why do you need lottery to artificially decide an event?
Over and back at the blue lines is already sort of part of the game.3 on 3 definitely needs something. I'd be more inclined to use the "no backing across the center line once you enter the zone" rule because it's more in the universe of hockey than a shot clock.