Shootout or no?

[tony d]

I don't love it but it is what it is right now, I think they should keep it.

 

[HomeAndHome]

It's the same kind of idea in the the home run derby is a skills competition, as is the shootout.

As for "the end", I meant when a goal is scored, then only you end the game.

I think that if there is continuous 3 on 3 OT in the regular season it may or may not lead to more exciting play. I could see teams start to play their 3rd/4th liners leading to less aggressive and more defensive (system) play the further into OT it goes, there is a reason why so many OT's already go the 5 min distance and make it to the shootout.

 

[Legionnaire11]

I used to like it, now I really don't. I also don't like 3-on-3.

I'd rather see 5-on-5 for another five minutes and then a tie, or just scrap OT all together. If it's tied after 60 then it's a tie.

 

[DaveG]

The largest sport in the world decides their major championships on shootouts, and soccer is much more comparable to hockey than hockey is to baseball.

Right, but they also don't end their regular season games on a shootout which is where the issue is for the NHL. If a game is a draw after 90+ injury time then they call it a draw, that's that. Honestly that's what I'd prefer the NHL go back to but I'd be more then fine with a period of 4 v 4 OT first if need be.

And I'm not a huge fan of PKs being the deciding factor in championships for the sport I played for 20+ years either, but that's not what's up for debate.

 

[GingerJesus28]

Where's the 10 mins of 3v3 option?

 

[Everlast22]

Maybe just add more time to the OT.

 

[HomeAndHome]

Right, but they also don't end their regular season games on a shootout which is where the issue is for the NHL. If a game is a draw after 90+ injury time then they call it a draw, that's that. Honestly that's what I'd prefer the NHL go back to but I'd be more then fine with a period of 4 v 4 OT first if need be.

And I'm not a huge fan of PKs being the deciding factor in championships for the sport I played for 20+ years either, but that's not what's up for debate.

I agree with this, however if the NHL doesn't want to end games on ties I'm not sure I would want extended OT where teams (potentially) aren't playing aggressively, so this is why I am fine with the shootout after 5 minutes.

 

[NeverForget06]

I would like the option to select 10 min 3v3 - if nobody scores then a tie

 

[FlyTimmo]

Ties are boring. We saw a solid dip in the number of shootouts after changing to the 3v3 system. Extend that to 10 minutes and keep the shootout. The number of shootouts will go down to <5 per team.

 

[Stud Muffin]

Keep it tie games are for losers

 

[Peggy]

I don't mind it but ideal for me would be no OT, no shoot out. Ties after 60 minutes.

Ties are a waste of time
You play and watch 60 minutes for nothing
Shoot outs aren't the answer either

Don't know why they can't do 5 minutes periods for OT

5v5, then 4v4, then 3v3 until someone scores

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Get rid of the most ridiculous gimmick in pro sports

Agree. Go back to 4v4 OT, then SO.

 

[TheMule93]

Keep it but I don't love it. I'd prefer it to ties.

 

[Trap Jesus]

I really don't think there's a good solution. Shootoouts, 3-on-3 and even 4-on-4 are all gimmicks, doesn't matter which option or combination of options they choose. At the end of the day, it still beats a tie though. Shootouts (for all intents and purposes) are the only guarantee of a relatively quick end to the game, so I do think they should keep it in. How they want to limit the number of shootouts in general (such as adding in 3-on-3) doesn't really matter to me.

The only thing I'd suggest would be to take out ROW wins as a tiebreaker and only make it regulation wins as the tiebreaker. As I mentioned before, I think every iteration of OT/SO the league has had has been a gimmick, and I wouldn't reward teams for winning in that fashion more than they need to.

 

[Peggy]

If they are to keep it
Shoot out losses/wins should not be equivalent to regular loss/OT

 

[flyersfan018]

Continuous OT will never happen in the regular season. People need to realize that.

 

[Eisen]

Ties are a waste of time
You play and watch 60 minutes for nothing
Shoot outs aren't the answer either

Don't know why they can't do 5 minutes periods for OT

5v5, then 4v4, then 3v3 until someone scores

Apparently, I don't see it that way. We are not on some epic quest to find out who's best. It's a game that measures who scores more in a fixed amount of time.

 

[Sojourn]

This x100!!

The shootout needs to go, it's an awful way to decide a game...let the guys play until the end.

If that were practical, I think the NHL would have already considered it.

And I'm not really sure 3-on-3 OT is all that different than a shootout. It's pretty gimmicky too.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Continuous OT will never happen in the regular season. People need to realize that.

Agreed.

There's already too many games in a season. There's no way the players should go through endless OTs in regular season games. Then there's the whole problem with schedules.

 

[ToMaLe]

If that were practical, I think the NHL would have already considered it.

And I'm not really sure 3-on-3 OT is all that different than a shootout. It's pretty gimmicky too.

i hate the SO and I agree with you on the 3x3 so thats why I went with option #3.

 

[GoalDeny]

Endless 3-on-3 overtime is what I would go with.

 

[Inkling]

4-on-4 -> 3-on-3 -> tie

Get rid of the shootout. 3-on-3 is a bit gimmicky but it at least includes most of the elements of hockey.

 

[Lays]

I used to love it when I was younger because it was entertaining to watch but then I realized it really does not determine who the better team is. OT for 10 minutes and if still no one scores then tie the game

 

[Leafidelity]

Get rid of it. 3 on 3 might not be traditional hockey, but it's still a team event. Shootouts are way too individualistic for my liking.

 

[RABBIT]

3 on 3 is less of a gimmick than a shootout. 3 on 3 is still actual hockey. Shootout is a skills competition.