The shootout
- Thread starter gocbj
- Start date
I agree something has to be done about the shootout, but that's just way too much of a home ice advantage.
...then maybe not as sudden death. Each team gets one 4V3 opportunity per set. If the team who has 4 first scores, great. Then the other team gets 4. Score and do it again. If they don't, it is over.
How about 3 points for a regulation or OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a OT or shootout loss.
Just an idea but what if we moved away from the point system?
For example, teams are ranked by regulation and over time wins. First tie breaker is ROW + shoot out wins. Second is fewest regulation losses (versus OT losses).
Then head to head, etc.
Just an idea I had. Feel free to flame
. I just think the point system is a bit flawed. Plus this encourages teams to win in regulation
For example, teams are ranked by regulation and over time wins. First tie breaker is ROW + shoot out wins. Second is fewest regulation losses (versus OT losses).
Then head to head, etc.
Just an idea I had. Feel free to flame
. I just think the point system is a bit flawed. Plus this encourages teams to win in regulation
FANonymous
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2010
- 4,911
- 0
Mayor Bee
Registered User
- Dec 29, 2008
- 18,085
- 531
Columbus Mike
2015-16 CBJ
- Feb 21, 2008
- 1,332
- 460
2:00 of 4v3. If don't score, the other team gets 2:00 to win it.
If the first team scores during their 2:00, the other team gets the opportunity to score in less time. So, Team 1 scores in 45 seconds, Team 2 gets 45 seconds to win. Any shorty is an instant winner.
As dumb as the shootout, so make it happen.
I would rather do two 4 minute 4 on 4 periods followed by 3 on 3 until there is a winner. I don't think you would get to the 3 on 3 too often, but who knows.
Then change the points system to make it more important to win in regulation.
Moch Daear
Registered User
- Jan 9, 2011
- 230
- 58
No more three point games.
At the end of regulation, Team A leads - they get two points
If tied at end of regulation, ten mins of OT is played - winner gets two points
If there is no winner, each team is awarded one point.
Feel free to adjust the OT if necessary - but it's high time the shootout was dropped, as well as these three point games.
At the end of regulation, Team A leads - they get two points
If tied at end of regulation, ten mins of OT is played - winner gets two points
If there is no winner, each team is awarded one point.
Feel free to adjust the OT if necessary - but it's high time the shootout was dropped, as well as these three point games.
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
We would have been great at this with Commodore and Voracek on the team...
I think the best, most logical option (other than bringing back the dreaded TIE) would be to simply play hockey until someone can't play hockey anymore. We play sudden death OT in the playoffs, baseball plays extra innings until there is a winner - heck, even the NBA plays OT until it finds a winner. I say, go from 5 on 5 in regulation, to 4 on 4 in OT - maybe for 10 minutes, or a full 20 minute period. After that, if there is still no winner, then maybe you go to 3 on 3 (I'm personally against this idea, would prefer it stays at 4 on 4) until someone scores a goal.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,604
- 6,530
I love the shoot out. It is a great showcase for the tremendous offensive skills of the players, skills which all too often aren't demonstrated in today's defense-oriented game. I only wish that the format would be expanded to 5 shooters instead of 3.
I suppose that OT could be extended to 10 minutes, but it still would be a 4 on 4 affair. Going to 3 on 3 resembles "normal" hockey about as much as the SO does.
Tie breakers are never going to seem "fair" when they go against your team. C'est la vie.
I suppose that OT could be extended to 10 minutes, but it still would be a 4 on 4 affair. Going to 3 on 3 resembles "normal" hockey about as much as the SO does.
Tie breakers are never going to seem "fair" when they go against your team. C'est la vie.
That is fine, but IMO, the shootout is the dumbest thing (when it comes to determining who wins a game) in sports. 3 on 3 isn't great, but at least you still involve forwards, defenders, and a goaltender.
FANonymous
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2010
- 4,911
- 0
And passing and transition game and players on the ice having to play both offense and defense. To say 3 on 3 is as close to hockey as the shootout is, is quite a bit of hyperbole.
CrazyCanucks
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2005
- 2,150
- 2
Gary Bettman must have failed at math.
This is teh way it should be if your awarding 3 pt games
Win in regulation: 3 pts
Loss in Regulation: 0 pts
Win in OT or Shootout: 2 Pts
Loss in OT or Shootout: 1 Pt
This will have every game being awarded 3 points, no matter what the outcome. Why the NHL cant do this is beyond stupid.
This is teh way it should be if your awarding 3 pt games
Win in regulation: 3 pts
Loss in Regulation: 0 pts
Win in OT or Shootout: 2 Pts
Loss in OT or Shootout: 1 Pt
This will have every game being awarded 3 points, no matter what the outcome. Why the NHL cant do this is beyond stupid.
FANonymous
Registered User
- Nov 7, 2010
- 4,911
- 0
They can do that, they just don't want to. If you use that system, you don't have a log jam of teams fighting for the final spot on the final day creating more hype, excitement, ratings, and ultimately more money.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't make sense, it makes money.
Robert
Foligno family
I wanted the SO because I was tired of ties never thinking three point games would have so much impact... Your point system is the way it should be done but will never happen. Teams won't play for OT or the SO under your system.... It reflects the actual value of effort over time...
Timeless Winter
SaveD the Crew
CrazyCanucks
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2005
- 2,150
- 2
What the current actually does is gives those teams a false sense of hope, that they are good enough to make the playoffs because they were only 3 points away from the playoffs. when they are not good teams to be in the playoffs The Flames have operated under this illusion to a T. They should have gotten rid of Iggy and Kipper when they had better value and started the re-build 2 years ago, but because they were "in the mix" with all these loser points.
The NHL knows this system is wrong, along with how the shootout is. Why else is the ROW column is there now? The NHL is so backwards in this, and it actually ruins the integrity of the game
Why is the NFL so successful, even down the stretch? Only 6 spots in each conference are given out of 16 teams, but there is no gimmick with their league.
My view on the point system is well documented. We need to expand OT to 10 minutes. We also need to ban the spin-o-rama.
Robert
Foligno family
One way or another each game should have the same number of points on the table... If the NHL wants to keep the SO every game should be worth 3 points... Some games worth 2 points and others 3 points is not consistent.
I like the idea sort of jokingly proposed on the MvsW podcast...
Have the shootout at the start of the game. Then both teams play the game knowing from the onset who will win if the game is tied. If the game is not tied, the shootout had no meaning other than to give the fans a show.
In reality though, I'd rather do away with the whole thing to begin with, or if you have to do it, at lest use 5 shooters to lesson the effect of a small sample size.
Have the shootout at the start of the game. Then both teams play the game knowing from the onset who will win if the game is tied. If the game is not tied, the shootout had no meaning other than to give the fans a show.
In reality though, I'd rather do away with the whole thing to begin with, or if you have to do it, at lest use 5 shooters to lesson the effect of a small sample size.
