Regular Season OT and the Shootout... (Opinions?)

I'm curious to see what you guys think about this topic;

For years I've been weighing my thoughts on OT in the NHL and the subsequent shootout format.

My stance is that I actually was brought up with Overtime being a playoff novelty and that a 2-2 tie where both teams get a point was "The way it is", so to speak. I used to get the jitters when playoff games would go to "Sudden Death" OT. It was dramatic and we sure have seen some tense ones over the years.

I'll cut to the chase for you guys and I'm curious to see what you long-timers think...either way.

I think the NHL should do away with Regular season OT. I like the 1 point a piece rule, that's cool with me. The season is 82 games and OT just makes it that much longer. I think keeping it for the playoffs is right up my alley.

The shootouts are definitely fun, don't get me wrong. I just think it detracts from when a guy gets a "rare" Penalty Shot attempt. We've seen it so many times at this point I feel a little jaded with it, but that's me.

I'm all for the Tie games after 60 rule

One point apiece and see ya later.

OT for Playoffs only.

Shootouts - yeah, they're fun, but the game sells itself, Mr. Bettman. I don't tune in for shootouts!

Have at it boys!

Ozz

Even when they allowed ties, there was still OT. The main downfail of that old system was boring hockey at the end of tie games. Teams would play not to lose instead of playing to win, afraid to take chances and risk losing the 1 point they'd get from the tie.

I don't think 5 minutes of 3 on 3 makes the season much longer. The only change I'd make is with the points awarded. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for a OT/SO win, 1 point for an OT/SH loss.

Anything is an improvement over fans having to sit thru 3 full periods and ending up seeing a "Kiss your Sister" tie.

I would agree on adjusting the points awarded to 3 for reg win, 2 for OT win, 1 for SO win and 0 for ALL losses

I'd sooner rethink the entire point system rather than bring back the tie, though I'm not against it. I really can't stand the shootout though and I can dig the 3-3 OT, so I wouldn't want to get rid of regular season OT altogether.

Yeah, I think I'd rather an extended OT versus going with the shootout.

Go back to 5 on 5 for OT, and stay with the shootout. Winner after regulation or OT gets 2 points. Loser none.

The 3 on 3 is the least thing like hockey. It's stupid and a gimmick, more so than the shoot out imo.

5 minute OT. (Maybe 10 minutes)

No loser points.

No points for ties.

Have it be 5 on 5, or 1 on 1. Unless you eliminate the loser point, you won't have teams playing to win.

Even when they allowed ties, there was still OT. The main downfail of that old system was boring hockey at the end of tie games. Teams would play not to lose instead of playing to win, afraid to take chances and risk losing the 1 point they'd get from the tie.

 

I don't think 5 minutes of 3 on 3 makes the season much longer. The only change I'd make is with the points awarded. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for a OT/SO win, 1 point for an OT/SH loss.

But justify giving a point to a team that lost...

And the 3 point system got me like

3-2-1 is the way it should be. I'd even go 3-2-0. Play to win, don't play not to lose.

"3 pt system" doesn't make sense to me.

You described a w-l system and a w-l-d system. Both easier to understand. And again, ensure the team winning wins.

Allowing anything after 60 minutes in the regular season is pandering to the casual fan IMO. Might as well just go to SO or just flip a coin!

I?m old-school and appreciate a well fought tie. But that won?t come back. The way to ?influence? a team?s effort in regulation is to reward the regulation win - say 3 points - compared to a 2 Point OT or SO win.

I?d love to see the data on ?fan experience? after a tie compared to any extra time win. Assuming that has already been done, the numbers must point to a ?majority? of game attendees wanting to feel satisfied...and that seems to mean a W v. L outcome no matter how that is achieved.

You can't do anything "until there's a winner". There has to be a cap on how much "extra hockey" there is during the regular season.

You can do whatever you want.

So when a team is playing their second game of 3 in 4 nights, and has to travel after the game to get to the third game (the second half of a back to back), making them play 60 minutes of overtime benefits who?

That sounds an awful lot like incentive to play to win, which is the whole point...

Not to mention the fact that it's ridiculous to build NHL policies around scenarios that might happen once every 100 years.

Is there no incentive to win in the playoffs where games go into multiple OT's?

The schedule is already too condensed and doesn't give the players enough recovery time.

18 skaters for 30 teams equals 540 players. Last year only 18% of those players played in all 82 games. 44% of the league missed at least 10 games. The year before, only 16% of players played all 82 games and 46% of the players missed at least 10 games.

So playing till there is a winner might rarely result in 3 OT's, but adding 10, 15, 20 extra minutes to a game is not beneficial to the players or the fans. When the regulars get hurt at a greater rate than they already are, you end up watching a glorified AHL team.

Is there no incentive to win in the playoffs where games go into multiple OT's?

 

The schedule is already too condensed and doesn't give the players enough recovery time.

 

18 skaters for 30 teams equals 540 players. Last year only 18% of those players played in all 82 games. 44% of the league missed at least 10 games. The year before, only 16% of players played all 82 games and 46% of the players missed at least 10 games.

 

So playing till there is a winner might rarely result in 3 OT's, but adding 10, 15, 20 extra minutes to a game is not beneficial to the players or the fans. When the regulars get hurt at a greater rate than they already are, you end up watching a glorified AHL team.

It's pretty disingenuous to compare regular season OT to playoff OT, especially when regular season would be 4v4.

10, 15, 20 minutes extra to a game is like 7 minutes of skating for a player in 4v4 where there's very little contact. That's not going to cause more injuries. You're grossly exaggerating the impact that extended OTs would have. It's not like players were getting hurt any more often 20 years ago when OT was 5v5 in the regular season.

I've never understood why a team that loses still gets a point. If you lose, you lose. I think the soccer system is a good one.

W = 3pts

D = 1pt

L = 0pts.

Get rid of the shootout. Play 3v3 OT for 5 minutes and if nothing happens you get 1 pt.

The reason the format and rules have constantly been changed since the end of regulation ties in 1983 is that every new permutation has proved no better than just allowing regulation ties. The biggest problem with the current arrangement is that whatever excitement is generated in OT or the SO is offset by the lack of excitement generated by teams playing for a regulation tie and a point in the 3rd period (why take a risk for two points in the third when you can wait to OT to take the risk when you've got one point guaranteed). The current system has resulted in an increase in regulation ties. The records as reported by the league make it difficult to figure out the number of regulation ties but is way up since the award of the loser point and the advent of OT to begin with. For example: the Rangers are currently 9-9-6 and the Devils 10-5-8 in regulation. Far too many ties.

The current arrangements call for arbitrary methods to break all of these ties. Three on three is fun to watch, but is completely unrelated to the real game. The shoot out is ridiculous, especially since the players are allowed to weave and proceed unnaturally slowly. It tests skills that are not part of the regular game. Should games be decided on the basis of skills not used in a regular hockey game?

And do we have to recount the 2010 playoff race coming down to a single shoot out?

OT and SO push goaltenders too far.

The NHL did fine with regulation ties for over 50 years. They should have left it that way.

I knew you guys would have some in depth opinions on this! I never heard of the 3 point system. I'm not really sure how I feel about that one, but I think a lot of us are in favor of doing away with the shoot out. I think it's a bad way to decide a game. Also the 3 on 3 is not really NHL style hockey and I agree with a lot of you guys; more a publicity type vehicle.

I think if people are going to be fans of the NHL, they might want to see the game as it really is, and that's not a Circus sideshow attraction, complete with a shootout.

I'm reading a lot of these and thinking that maybe some of you guys should take Bettman's place! :)

Do they still do the 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3 in the A?

I wouldn't mind seeing that in a longer OT and eliminate the shootout. 7-10 minute OT. Start 4 on 4. At the 5 minute mark (or whatever), change to 3 on 3. FUCK the shootout.

Re: Points system - Would this work?

2 points for regulation win

1 point for OT win

0 points for loss, regulation or OT.

Fuck the loser point.

I knew you guys would have some in depth opinions on this! I never heard of the 3 point system. I'm not really sure how I feel about that one, but I think a lot of us are in favor of doing away with the shoot out. I think it's a bad way to decide a game. Also the 3 on 3 is not really NHL style hockey and I agree with a lot of you guys; more a publicity type vehicle.

 

I think if people are going to be fans of the NHL, they might want to see the game as it really is, and that's not a Circus sideshow attraction, complete with a shootout.

 

I'm reading a lot of these and thinking that maybe some of you guys should take Bettman's place! :)

In my opinion, the NHL does not really have many "casual fans" like the NFL or some of the bigger sports. Catering to the people who are just flipping through the channels is not the way to run the sport. The SO is solely for the casual fan. I get that they're trying to grow the business but I think the NHL grows the game through putting hockey in communities and starting at the ground level or putting big games on national television in big spots: The Winter Classic, for instance.