The End Of The Shootout?

[missingchicklet]

I know it would interfere with TV scheduling since game lengths could vary quite a bit (OT vs. non-OT), but the absolute most sporting way to go about things is to have a 5-5 OT of 20 minutes, first goal wins. If nobody can score in OT then the game ends a tie and both teams get a point. If there is a winner then they get 2 pts. A win is a win. The shootout is an extremely lame way to end a game. TV money plays a large role, so I would guess the TV powers that be will have some say in the matter. As for the 3-3 idea, I think that is as gimmicky as the shootout and is not an equitable method for deciding games. Hockey is a 5-5 sport, and should be played that way. All other major sports in NA keep the same number of players in OT. The NHL should be no different.

 

[dredeye]

I don't see teams wanting to add that much overtime to a game. Would make travelling a lot harder for teams and they'd be arriving even later to other cities. I hate the shootout and want it gone. Like someone else said let them play a quick overtime like they use to and end it there. No need for the loser point at all.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

i think it would just take better planning.

i won't hold my breath.

I suppose that would make me something of a pessimist, but i just don't think the planners care enough to put in (or employ) enough work or effort to avoiding back-to-backs for professional teams, like the Bruins and the Celtics. They are not the ones actually playing in these games, so while they probably do make a mediocre effort to avoid them, they just don't care enough to avoid double-headers in schedules for ALL sports.

You're probably right, in that it is indeed possible, but i wouldn't hold my breath either... you are DEFINITELY are right about that.

 

[robert terwilliger]

I suppose that would make me something of a pessimist, but i just don't think the planners care enough to put in (or employ) enough work or effort to avoiding back-to-backs for professional teams, like the Bruins and the Celtics.

You're probably right, i wouldn't hold my breath either but you DEFINITELY are right about that.

i used to be on the side of just playing the overtime and going for the tie but honestly, if the league wants a winner and a loser, ending the game with a skills competition is just silly.

baseball's schedule is different, but there are plenty of times where free baseball is played on a getaway day or a team gets out late for one reason or another. it sucks for the team that has to make the trip but that's life in the big leagues.

the way the league tries to be duplicitous and play both sides, trying to keep the diehards but attract the mainstream seems to be losing more diehards than it's gaining them new fans.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

i used to be on the side of just playing the overtime and going for the tie but honestly, if the league wants a winner and a loser, ending the game with a skills competition is just silly.

baseball's schedule is different, but there are plenty of times where free baseball is played on a getaway day or a team gets out late for one reason or another. it sucks for the team that has to make the trip but that's life in the big leagues.

the way the league tries to be duplicitous and play both sides, trying to keep the diehards but attract the mainstream seems to be losing more diehards than it's gaining them new fans.

A 3-on-3 OT is basically tantamount to a skills competition. The fastest trio has a huge advantage. Goalies also factor into shootouts, too.

EDIT: i am not necessarily saying that YOU, personally, support having 3-on-3 overtime periods. I'm just saying/typing that that is what i was arguing against beforehand.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

YES!!!!

No point to the loser. In fact how about no point to either team if it ends in a tie? That would be ****ing SICK!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

the way the league tries to be duplicitous and play both sides, trying to keep the diehards but attract the mainstream seems to be losing more diehards than it's gaining them new fans.

I would love to agree with you on this. And I hold a similar opinion to yours on the sport.

But the revenue increases season over season seem to conflict with this statement.

 

[DominicT]

Been a long time advocate of a 3-2-1 point system

3 for regulation win
2 for overtime/shootout win
1 for overtime/shootout loss

In its infinite wisdom, the NHL views an overtime win the same as a regulation win and it should not be. Proof is in the standings where regulation and overtime wins are the tiebreaker in the standings. Two team tied for first: team could have 10 more regulation wins than the second team while the second team could have 11 more overtime wins and take top spot. Shouldn't a regulation win be more valuable than an OT win?

A look at today's standings:

Anaheim 20GP - 15W - 4L - 1OL - 31 PTS
Boston 17GP - 11W - 5L - 1OL - 23 PTS

Under the current system, the Bruins are 4 wins below Anaheim - 1 more than their games in hand

under 3-2-1 point system

Anaheim - 20 GP - 11W - 4 OW -4L - 1OL - 41PTS
Boston 17GP - 10W -1 OW - 5L - 1OL - 33PTS

(OW - Overtime or shootout wins)

Under this system, the Bruins are 2.5 wins behind

Edit - corrected my math

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

Been a long time advocate of a 3-2-1 point system

3 for regulation win
2 for overtime/shootout win
1 for overtime/shootout loss

In its infinite wisdom, the NHL views an overtime win the same as a regulation win and it should not be. Proof is in the standings where regulation and overtime wins are the tiebreaker in the standings. Two team tied for first: team could have 10 more regulation wins than the second team while the second team could have 11 more overtime wins and take top spot. Shouldn't a regulation win be more valuable than an OT win?

A look at today's standings:

Anaheim 20GP - 15W - 4L - 1OL - 31 PTS
Boston 17GP - 11W - 5L - 1OL - 23 PTS

Under the current system, the Bruins are 4 wins below Anaheim - 1 more than their games in hand

under 3-2-1 point system

Anaheim - 20 GP - 11W - 4 OW -4L - 1OL - 41PTS
Boston 17GP - 10W -1 OW - 5L - 1OL - 33PTS

(OW - Overtime or shootout wins)

Under this system, the Bruins are 2.5 wins behind

Edit - corrected my math

Exactly. Think about this: Under the current system a team can get 82 points while never winning a single game (yes, it's far fetched for a team to have 82 OTL's but you get my point). That puts them a handful of wins outside of a playoff spot. In a 3-2-1 system, the top teams will gain ground at a higher rate from regulation wins so a team stealing 82 points from OTL's would mean they are not nearly as close to a playoff spot as in the current system. Like I said, there's no way a team could manage to force OT 82 times in a season, but it's an extreme example to illustrate just how many points the current system gives away for what are essentially losses. In a 3-2-1 system they'd still give away the same number of points to OT losers, but those points would not go as far as they do now.

 

[Alan Ryan]

Never liked points for losing.

Never liked a win in the shootout being worth the same amount as a win in regulation.

Never had a problem with a tie game.

My thoughts exactly. The shootout needs to go now.

 

[KnightofBoston]

I like the idea of no points after a 10 minute tie and no loser point, it would force teams to open up and go for it

 

[DominicT]

I like the idea of no points after a 10 minute tie and no loser point, it would force teams to open up and go for it

Are you saying go to a shootout afterwards and no point to the loser? Because I can see the opposite of what you are saying as well.

Shut down teams that aren't as prolific in scoring, or teams that their offense comes from being patient and wait for others mistakes to go on the offense (such as the Bruins) will wait and try and take their chances in the shootout.

I can't see teams like the Bruins changing the style of their game, that they play game in and game out, for a 10 minute overtime and play a wide open - go for the win now game. They don't do it in the playoffs, so I can't see them do it in the regular season,

 

[Root]

I don't hate the shootout as much as others but wouldn't be sad to see it go.

what I really would prefer is extending the OT to ten minutes, the players would be gassed in the last few minutes of OT 4v4, would be very exciting.

the winner gets two points wether it be in regulation or OT and zero points rewarded to a team if they lose in regulation or overtime. if it goes to a shootout the winner gets two points and the loser gets one.

if you want to reward teams for losing in a skill competition that's fine by me but I don't think teams should be rewarded for losing in OT.

 

[Killerbeez]

I don't mind the shootout too much but I do think that the OT period should be longer whether its 5x5, 4x4, 3x3 or some combination. 5 minutes seems to go by with 2-3 rushes each way very quickly. stretch it to 10 minutes and fatigue will be a factor. If you then go to a shootout, I'd be ok with it. Hockey purists will stick around either way. For this game to continue to thrive it has to attract new viewers. Like it or not, the public wants to see a definitive resolution to the game and not a tie. We like winners or losers as a society.

Also agree that no games should have bonus points awarded either way. a game should be worth 2 or 3 points with none being worth more if they go into OT in totality. i like the idea of 3 point regulation win, 2 point OT win and 1 point for getting to OT. That should incentivize teams to get it done in regulation without penalizing a team for a 60 minute effort.

 

[TCL40]

I think a 10 minute 5 on 5 OT would be fine and probably take about the same time as a 5 min OT with a shoot out.

If there isn't a winner they split the points-if there is then they take them both and the winner gets nothing.

If this doesn't work-then a 3 point system seems more fair.

I don't really like 4 on 4 or 3 on 3.

 

[ODAAT]

Discussed at the GM meeting in Toronto yesterday...

- Extending the 4 on 4 overtime another 5 minutes?
- Possibly going down to 3 v 3 after the 5 minute 4v4?

Pretty interesting. Although it doesn't play to the Bruins strengths, I wouldn't mind seeing some crazy, wide open 3v3 hockey.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-gms-looking-at-losing-the-shootout/

Anything but the skills contest works for me. Tell ya what, this old guy never had any issues with games ending in a tie but at least, in a 3 on 3 format (which I`m almost sure Holland was the first to suggest years ago?) it would still be the game settled by playing hockey

I dunno, I have just never understood the team on the losing end ever receiving some form of compensation for that loss

 

[KnightofBoston]

Are you saying go to a shootout afterwards and no point to the loser? Because I can see the opposite of what you are saying as well.

Shut down teams that aren't as prolific in scoring, or teams that their offense comes from being patient and wait for others mistakes to go on the offense (such as the Bruins) will wait and try and take their chances in the shootout.

I can't see teams like the Bruins changing the style of their game, that they play game in and game out, for a 10 minute overtime and play a wide open - go for the win now game. They don't do it in the playoffs, so I can't see them do it in the regular season,

No i like the idea of 4-4 for 5 and 3-3 for 5 or 4-4 for ten and no points to anyone for a tie, it would force teams to open up and try to score

They could also not count OTW's in tiebreakers to give more significance to a win in reg

I also acknowledge this wouldnt favor the b's but, i like the idea in the big picture

 

[ODAAT]

Been a long time advocate of a 3-2-1 point system

3 for regulation win
2 for overtime/shootout win
1 for overtime/shootout loss

In its infinite wisdom, the NHL views an overtime win the same as a regulation win and it should not be. Proof is in the standings where regulation and overtime wins are the tiebreaker in the standings. Two team tied for first: team could have 10 more regulation wins than the second team while the second team could have 11 more overtime wins and take top spot. Shouldn't a regulation win be more valuable than an OT win?

A look at today's standings:

Anaheim 20GP - 15W - 4L - 1OL - 31 PTS
Boston 17GP - 11W - 5L - 1OL - 23 PTS

Under the current system, the Bruins are 4 wins below Anaheim - 1 more than their games in hand

under 3-2-1 point system

Anaheim - 20 GP - 11W - 4 OW -4L - 1OL - 41PTS
Boston 17GP - 10W -1 OW - 5L - 1OL - 33PTS

(OW - Overtime or shootout wins)

Under this system, the Bruins are 2.5 wins behind

Edit - corrected my math

Me no good at math, Engish is me strenthg

 

[BigGoalBrad]

Doms suggestion is best. It means that there isn't motivation for 2 teams to take each other to OT like there currently is. When you are in a race for the 8 spot it seems like every game between other teams gunning for that spot ends up in OT, especially when they play each other.


Well after mine which rewards zilch to whoever loses in OT is really the best but in todays entitlement society it won't fly...but its big boy hockey everyone doesn't get a trophy why should there be a point awarded to a losing team? Just give each team 5 mins of 3 on 3 before you have the 2 teams go to a shootout with the loser going home with nothing.

 

[KrejciMVP]

3 points for a win, 1 for a tie? seems ok to me

 

[ODAAT]

Doms suggestion is best. It means that there isn't motivation for 2 teams to take each other to OT like there currently is. When you are in a race for the 8 spot it seems like every game between other teams gunning for that spot ends up in OT, especially when they play each other.


Well after mine which rewards zilch to whoever loses in OT is really the best but in todays entitlement society it won't fly...but its big boy hockey everyone doesn't get a trophy why should there be a point awarded to a losing team? Just give each team 5 mins of 3 on 3 before you have the 2 teams go to a shootout with the loser going home with nothing.

Everyone is a winner today Marshmont, everyone

 

[Cid]

Do other fan bases around the league feel the same as us?

Let's be honest. Our Bruin's are not exactly a shootout team. We have a lot of good players, but lots of grinders. Not exactly elite skilled forwards. Most of our players (minus Bergy) will skate in and shoot or do maybe 1 or 2 dekes max. We have to rely heavily on Tuukka in the shootout.

Do other teams with superstars like the Penguins fans feel the same as we do?

 

[spokedB]

Doubt it will ever happen, but what if no points were awarded for a tie. That would certainly make it fast and furious.

Now there is an idea worthy of consideration.

Ending a game in a tie led teams to play conservative hockey. Think of the Flyers ending up with an absurd 24 ties in 1969-70. They played for a tie.

The above plan would lead to lots of wide open chance taking - far more entertaining than nailing a sheet of plywood over the net and calling it good.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

I don't mind the shootout too much but I do think that the OT period should be longer whether its 5x5, 4x4, 3x3 or some combination. 5 minutes seems to go by with 2-3 rushes each way very quickly. stretch it to 10 minutes and fatigue will be a factor. If you then go to a shootout, I'd be ok with it. Hockey purists will stick around either way. For this game to continue to thrive it has to attract new viewers. Like it or not, the public wants to see a definitive resolution to the game and not a tie. We like winners or losers as a society.

Also agree that no games should have bonus points awarded either way. a game should be worth 2 or 3 points with none being worth more if they go into OT in totality. i like the idea of 3 point regulation win, 2 point OT win and 1 point for getting to OT. That should incentivize teams to get it done in regulation without penalizing a team for a 60 minute effort.

I'm with you there. There should only be a "consolation point" for losing in what amounts to a skills competition after 65-70 minutes (depending on how long the OT period is) of stalemate hockey IF a regulation win is worth 3 points. That way the point means less in the overall scheme of things.

I also don't really mind the shootout as much as some others posting on this forum, and that doesn't mean i'm not some brand new teenaged fan.

I've been watching the Bruins since i started playing hockey in Kindergarten... when Neely-Oates-Juneau-Bourque-Sweeney wore black/gold (supported by the likes of Ted Donato, Steve Heinz, Dave Reid, Brent Hughes over the years) and when Andy Moog was the B's goaltender. I was quite young but i still remember Ulf Samuelsson's cheap-shot on Neely.

Bottom line, whatever the NHL is doing -- and it is not perfect, it could use some tweaking like the proposed 3-2-1 point system (which would give the "loser point" less impact on standings) -- the league is bringing in more revenue today than it was a decade ago. And no it is not just inflation.

At the risk of repeating myself i'll point out that the bottom line is: More fans = more revenue = higher salary cap = higher quality teams and more talented rosters. The smaller the cap figure is, the more it hurts the quality of the NHL's product.

I understand the purist's point of view, but i am on the fence about certain initiatives. I am happy they allow 2-line-passes now, hybrid icing is not perfect but it's a safer alternative to touch-icing and is still superior to automatic icing... hybrid has grown on me a bit.

I'm not in love with the shootout, but i'm somewhat ambivalent about it. I do wish the OT period was 10 minutes in any case... right now practically all but a few regulation ties are decided by shootouts. THAT i do not like.

In short, i don't mind the shootout... but i want to minimize its impact on the standings. A 10-minute, 4-on-4 OT period and a 3 [regulation win] - 2 [shootout win] - 1 [shootout loss] point system addresses this rather well without eliminating the shootout altogether.

I believe less people would hate the shootout if that 3/2/1 point system and an extra 5 minutes of 4-on-4 OT were adopted into NHL's standings determination.

 

[RussellmaniaKW]

What about a 5-on-5 or 6-on-6 OT period with no goalies? Now that could prove to be exciting haha.