Time to Go Back to Ties

[SheldonJPlankton]

I'd like that but as has been said the PA wouldn't accept it. Maaaaaybe if we shortened the season, which I am personally okay with. That's really the best way to do this.

If we still can't get that then my preference would be 5 minute 5v5 OT where the winner gets 2 points and the loser 0. If no one scores then it's a tie and both get 1 point each. 3v3s can be entertaining but it hurts the integrity of the game and shootouts are even worse.

They could lengthen the season...that should result in fewer back-to-back games...and/or increase rosters...giving teams more opportunities to rest certain players in back-to-back situations.

I would imagine the PA would be agreeable to increased rosters, at the least. More NHL players means more power, influence and money for the PA.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

A key difference is that goals are much more prevalent in hockey than they are in soccer. I'd like to assume that even with the absence of overtime, the higher goals-per-game alongside an extra incentive to win would outweigh the desire to sit back and take a tie (to a certain point; the further back that point of non-action is, the more effective the system). Given the nature of what's widely known as the loser point under the current system, that incentive doesn't really exist. You can pick up a ROW, sure, but you can get one past regulation as well so long as the game doesn't go to a shootout. It can't be said to be a certain fix before it's tested, of course. Getting to the point of testing an overtime-free 3-1-0 system is the true leap of faith though.

The NHL record for ties in a season is 24 by the 69/70 Flyers (76-game season). In that same season the only other teams with more than 16 were Minnesota (22) and Boston (19) while only two teams had 10 or fewer (Chicago, 9; LA, 10). Everyone else was in the middle. It's a much different game now of course.


Thankfully we'll never get to that point. Physically punishing a team and its players for not winning soon enough is... yeah. Not good. Again. Player safety, etc..

If you're going to punish a team for not winning after however many minutes, then punish them in the standings.

What punishment? Teams would simply play as needed to win within whatever time, travel or schedule constraints they faced that day.

If anything, I would think there would be less overall problems under such a system. Under most circumstances, there would be no benefit to force a game into post-regulation play. Most of the time, teams would have compelling reasons to produce results during regulation. I would imagine post-regulation play would ultimately become far less common and, when the odd overtime game did occur, it would end far more dramatically and excitingly, with teams in OT pushing harder to end the game as soon as possible with a victory.

 

[Kirikanoir]

Hockey is a real man sport. No to ties, save that crap for wimpy Soccer. Do you want ties in the playoffs too? Yeah I thought so.

I am glad the nhl doesn't listen to Internet fans sometimes.

Do you want shootouts in the playoffs too? Yeah I thought so.

 

[Roomtemperature]

No ties. Ties are so unsatisfying.

A single NHL regular season game is 1 of 82 and not really a big deal on its own. Having a tie breaking scenario like the shootout provides more satisfaction to more fans then the "integrity" of a tie provides to the minority of hardcore fans that populate this board.

 

[Evergreen]

They should just make the winner get 2 points and the loser 0. I get that people don't like the idea of a shootout winner maybe getting 2 points and the loser of a shootout getting 0, but it would incentivize teams to try to actually win rather than just shut down in the third period.

 

[Seath The Scaleless]

Hockey is a real man sport. No to ties, save that crap for wimpy Soccer. Do you want ties in the playoffs too? Yeah I thought so.

I am glad the nhl doesn't listen to Internet fans sometimes.

Do you want shootouts in the playoffs as well? Yeah, I thought so.

Anyway, the league has already devalued the shootout by introducing the ROW column. They know that it is far from the best way to end a game, so let's just eliminate the shootout altogether. I am all for ties.

 

[Kirikanoir]

No ties. Ties are so unsatisfying.

A single NHL regular season game is 1 of 82 and not really a big deal on its own. Having a tie breaking scenario like the shootout provides more satisfaction to more fans then the "integrity" of a tie provides to the minority of hardcore fans that populate this board.

Funny I don`t recall being polled by the NHL to determine whether my opinion of shootouts was in the majority or minority. Guess I must have missed out on that.

 

[Kirikanoir]

They should just make the winner get 2 points and the loser 0. I get that people don't like the idea of a shootout winner maybe getting 2 points and the loser of a shootout getting 0, but it would incentivize teams to try to actually win rather than just shut down in the third period.

I would take it even further, 1 point for a SO winner and 0 points for the loser. This would add even more incentive for teams to decide the game before it gets to a SO.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Funny I don`t recall being polled by the NHL to determine whether my opinion of shootouts was in the majority or minority. Guess I must have missed out on that.

And where is this tie movement besides on here? Show me on Twitter or facebook or tsn comments?

On here we care that much more and we think we rep all opinions but we don't. We are a small section of the fanbase. Its hard to remember that as it sometimes becomes an echo chamber

 

[Mike Martin]

Ties are honorable, it means that two teams were equal that night, this notion that fans need a winner or loser or they aren't "satisfied" is nonsense, you pay for the quality of the game not the victory or defeat. I also agree that getting rid of the loser point makes an Overtime defeat a lot more crushing and feels more like playoff hockey.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Ties are honorable, it means that two teams were equal that night, this notion that fans need a winner or loser or they aren't "satisfied" is nonsense, you pay for the quality of the game not the victory or defeat. I also agree that getting rid of the loser point makes an Overtime defeat a lot more crushing and feels more like playoff hockey.

Ties are not satisfying. Its why its called kissing your sister. Or are you willfully ignoring that because you live in a different society

 

[SladeWilson23]

They should just make the winner get 2 points and the loser 0. I get that people don't like the idea of a shootout winner maybe getting 2 points and the loser of a shootout getting 0, but it would incentivize teams to try to actually win rather than just shut down in the third period.

You know what would accomplish the same thing, the 3 point system. And you know what, you don't have to worry about screwing teams over by going to the 3 point system.

 

[Hackett]

I never had an issue with ties to begin with. I didn't feel like a regular season game absolutely needs to have a winner.

One poster mentioned that they are unsatisfying. Well, losses are also unsatisfying, so should we get rid of them too?

The NHL has really opened Pandora's box trying to force a win-loss scenario. Losing a bizarre looking 3 on 3 ot session just feels excessively cruel and unfair, as does the shootout. If you want to introduce these gimmicks to force a "winner", then at least come up with a point system that appropriately differentiates a gimmick win from a traditional win.

 

[Knave]

Ties are not satisfying. Its why its called kissing your sister. Or are you willfully ignoring that because you live in a different society

I think some people get their rocks off on being contrarian and feel superior because of it.

 

[RageQuit77]

I never had an issue with ties to begin with. I didn't feel like a regular season game absolutely needs to have a winner.

One poster mentioned that they are unsatisfying. Well, losses are also unsatisfying, so should we get rid of them too?

The NHL has really opened Pandora's box trying to force a win-loss scenario. Losing a bizarre looking 3 on 3 ot session just feels excessively cruel and unfair, as does the shootout. If you want to introduce these gimmicks to force a "winner", then at least come up with a point system that appropriately differentiates a gimmick win from a traditional win.

Respect man! o7

 

[Kirikanoir]

And where is this tie movement besides on here? Show me on Twitter or facebook or tsn comments?

On here we care that much more and we think we rep all opinions but we don't. We are a small section of the fanbase. Its hard to remember that as it sometimes becomes an echo chamber

But I`m not the one claiming to know what the majority of NHL fans think about shootouts and games ending tied. Seems to me your the one who needs to provide some evidence to back up your position.

No ties. Ties are so unsatisfying.

A single NHL regular season game is 1 of 82 and not really a big deal on its own. Having a tie breaking scenario like the shootout provides more satisfaction to more fans then the "integrity" of a tie provides to the minority of hardcore fans that populate this board.

Do you have some evidence to back up your claim that tie breaking procedures like the SO are more satisfying to the majority of fans? If not then that is simply your opinion.

 

[FuriousSenator]

Ties are not satisfying. Its why its called kissing your sister. Or are you willfully ignoring that because you live in a different society

I love how you can say this when in fact those who think ties in sports are unacceptable are a tiny fraction of a tiny sliver of global sports fans.

The rest (literally billions) understand and accept that ties can be epic and meaningful and there is a place for them in pro sports.

Sorry.

 

[Roomtemperature]

I love how you can say this when in fact those who think ties in sports are unacceptable are a tiny fraction of a tiny sliver of global sports fans.

The rest (literally billions) understand and accept that ties can be epic and meaningful and there is a place for them in pro sports.

Sorry.

Soccer fans do. North American sports fans don't. The fact some on here can reconcile the fact the world and America have different opinions amazes me

 

[RageQuit77]

Soccer fans do. North American sports fans don't. The fact some on here can reconcile the fact the world and America have different opinions amazes me

But why it is that way? Where comes that desire to determine always the best, even in scenarios where nothing particularly indicate that either of competants would be better?

And most importantly, why that drive for searching "winner" or "the best" have to go that far it can actually go beyond a boundary of a sport?

When hockey was developing in it's cradle, there was no problems what so ever accept tie-results. Why? Because nature of Hockey doesn't oblige that there should be winner and loser every time. By objectively perceivable on-ice happenings within regulation, this is perfectly in line what is also behind of whole debate for re-introduction of tie to the NHL hockey.

North American nations aren't only hockey playing countries of the world, neither the League only a national project anymore.

 

[Knave]

North American nations aren't only hockey playing countries of the world, neither the League only a national project anymore.

So? Go do whatever you want in your league.

 

[RageQuit77]

So? Go do whatever you want in your league.

Fair. That's exactly what's happening in The NHL. Sad that "go to do" there have to do what ever it wants with un-hockey stuff.

Sadly many many other leagues around the world have followed un-hockey idiotisms of NHL, and I don't wonder why.

 

[Knave]

Fair. That's exactly what's happening in The NHL. Sad that "go to do" there have to do what ever it wants with un-hockey stuff.

Sadly many many other leagues around the world have followed un-hockey idiotisms of NHL, and I don't wonder why.

LOL. Yeah when it's stuff you disagree with it's not hockey. OK.

Tradition is the worst reason to change back to older methods. I don't see convincing arguments regarding standings either beyond "oh it will be more competitive despite no evidence".

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

So? Go do whatever you want in your league.

Unfortunately for you (fortunately for probably most of us), the NHL is not a Canadian/North American preserve anymore.

 

[RageQuit77]

LOL. Yeah when it's stuff you disagree with it's not hockey. OK.

Tradition is the worst reason to change back to older methods. I don't see convincing arguments regarding standings either beyond "oh it will be more competitive despite no evidence".

SO is for example un-hockey in this context. Distain against international tournaments is un-hockey thing too. Expansionist attitude is un-hockey if it's revolves mostly around economic aspects of the sport, rejecting most of it's power and opportunities to spread and grow the hockey as a sport world wide...

and then this would go off-topics... (possible with some vulgar choices of words)

 

[Knave]

SO is for example un-hockey in this context. Distain against international tournaments is un-hockey thing too. Expansionist attitude is un-hockey if it's revolves mostly around economic aspects of the sport, rejecting most of it's power and opportunities to spread and grow the hockey as a sport world wide...

and then this would go off-topics... (possible with some vulgar choices of words)

I don't think the shootout is having any impact. Nobody is going "OH MY GOD THIS IS SO GOOD BUT THEN THERE WAS A SHOOTOUT SO **** IT IM NOT A FAN".

The only people I have ever seen complain about this are people who tune in anyways - not casual fans and not new people experiencing hockey and a shootout for the first time.