Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Overtime in the NHL: the Idea, the Format, the Circus Sideshow


Ozzy

Recommended Posts

I admit it, I'm an old school traditionalist when it come to hockey. I go back to all those days of yesteryear, when if a player like Scott MacGregor wore a helmet, he and Bobby Rousseau were the rarities. That being said, I simply had to see whether I'm the only one out here who totally cannot stand the current NHL OT system and how they handle ties and whatnot.

 

First off I still feel as though Overtime should be in the playoffs only.

 

If the 2 teams are tied after 3 periods, fuck it...1 point apiece and see you next time!

 

OT was a novelty back then, and it was very exciting part of the game. You knew it was the playoffs and "sudden death" always was a nail-biter!

 

These teams travel way more than they used to back in the 70's, and there are now 82 games instead of 80. Why is it necessary to play a 3v3 for 5 minutes, only to be followed by a shootout? We need a decisive winner??? In the regular season??

 

Why? This is supposed to boost the NHL viewership?? Ratings?? Gimme a break! Yeah, the shootouts are cool to watch, but it's a skills competition, for fuck sake! Why are we taking 60 minutes of hard fought hockey, and settling the outcome in a 3 ring circus of back to back skills events?

 

I think it's a big pile of horse shit, and all it does is drain these guys even more, and open up the chance to injury in a 3v3, which is NOT normal hockey. It's a side show attraction in my eyes.

 

There are a lot of people say to change the 3v3 to 4v4 or 5v5, but you know what, I don't think it serves any purpose at all. If a road team gets a tie after 60 minutes in a tough building, so be it. I know there's no chance the NHL will ever go back to the original SUCCESSFUL format, but I'm curious to see if you guys think this puke is actually working, and/or serves any purpose at all.

 

Have at it boys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit it, I'm an old school traditionalist when it come to hockey. I go back to all those days of yesteryear, when if a player like Scott MacGregor wore a helmet, he and Bobby Rousseau were the rarities. That being said, I simply had to see whether I'm the only one out here who totally cannot stand the current NHL OT system and how they handle ties and whatnot.

 

First off I still feel as though Overtime should be in the playoffs only.

 

If the 2 teams are tied after 3 periods, fuck it...1 point apiece and see you next time!

 

OT was a novelty back then, and it was very exciting part of the game. You knew it was the playoffs and "sudden death" always was a nail-biter!

 

These teams travel way more than they used to back in the 70's, and there are now 82 games instead of 80. Why is it necessary to play a 3v3 for 5 minutes, only to be followed by a shootout? We need a decisive winner??? In the regular season??

 

Why? This is supposed to boost the NHL viewership?? Ratings?? Gimme a break! Yeah, the shootouts are cool to watch, but it's a skills competition, for fuck sake! Why are we taking 60 minutes of hard fought hockey, and settling the outcome in a 3 ring circus of back to back skills events?

 

I think it's a big pile of horse shit, and all it does is drain these guys even more, and open up the chance to injury in a 3v3, which is NOT normal hockey. It's a side show attraction in my eyes.

 

There are a lot of people say to change the 3v3 to 4v4 or 5v5, but you know what, I don't think it serves any purpose at all. If a road team gets a tie after 60 minutes in a tough building, so be it. I know there's no chance the NHL will ever go back to the original SUCCESSFUL format, but I'm curious to see if you guys think this puke is actually working, and/or serves any purpose at all.

 

Have at it boys!

 

Oh, have at it we will.

 

I HATED ties. It's basically "well, times up, let's split the points and go home", and it encouraged conservative play (because if you gave up the goal in OT, you went from 1 point to zero).

 

Further, 3v3 is without a doubt the most exciting thing we see in any game. It's non-stop, skillful, fast-paced, and fun.

 

My bigger issue is that there's no greater reward for getting it done in 60 minutes, and that we still do the shootout. More 3v3, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit it, I'm an old school traditionalist when it come to hockey. I go back to all those days of yesteryear, when if a player like Scott MacGregor wore a helmet, he and Bobby Rousseau were the rarities. That being said, I simply had to see whether I'm the only one out here who totally cannot stand the current NHL OT system and how they handle ties and whatnot.

 

First off I still feel as though Overtime should be in the playoffs only.

 

If the 2 teams are tied after 3 periods, fuck it...1 point apiece and see you next time!

 

OT was a novelty back then, and it was very exciting part of the game. You knew it was the playoffs and "sudden death" always was a nail-biter!

 

These teams travel way more than they used to back in the 70's, and there are now 82 games instead of 80. Why is it necessary to play a 3v3 for 5 minutes, only to be followed by a shootout? We need a decisive winner??? In the regular season??

 

Why? This is supposed to boost the NHL viewership?? Ratings?? Gimme a break! Yeah, the shootouts are cool to watch, but it's a skills competition, for fuck sake! Why are we taking 60 minutes of hard fought hockey, and settling the outcome in a 3 ring circus of back to back skills events?

 

I think it's a big pile of horse shit, and all it does is drain these guys even more, and open up the chance to injury in a 3v3, which is NOT normal hockey. It's a side show attraction in my eyes.

 

There are a lot of people say to change the 3v3 to 4v4 or 5v5, but you know what, I don't think it serves any purpose at all. If a road team gets a tie after 60 minutes in a tough building, so be it. I know there's no chance the NHL will ever go back to the original SUCCESSFUL format, but I'm curious to see if you guys think this puke is actually working, and/or serves any purpose at all.

 

Have at it boys!

 

You're an old school traditionalist? Ya don't say? I thought I'd open this thread and read a suggestion for tie games to end with a check-off, or just a center ice tilt between he goalies :rofl:

 

3v3 is the best thing to happen to hockey since takin gout the red line, but I'd love to hear the reasoning on "exposing players to injury".

 

That said, if you want to go back to ties, I'd suggest giving a tie 0 points, since neither team "won the points". Don't split the points, no one plays for ties. everyone would go for it, no one can afford to leave points on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3v3 OT is the best thing that happened to hockey the last few years.

I was at the game yesterday and with about 3:00 left in the game I was like I hope the Rangers go to OT b/c I want to see what their skill players can do 3v3. I was on the edge of my seat the entire OT, especially that one stretch where it was back and forth with like 3 odd man rushes.

I agree that their isnt an incentive if a team wins in regulation and their should be. When the NHL first introduced a loser's point in OT, the NHL said that they didnt want to do 3-2-1-0 points system b/c it would be too confusing for the average fan with all the columns in the standings, but then they added a 4th column for ROW anyway. Time to revisit 3 points for a regulation win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're an old school traditionalist? Ya don't say? I thought I'd open this thread and read a suggestion for tie games to end with a check-off, or just a center ice tilt between he goalies :rofl:

 

3v3 is the best thing to happen to hockey since takin gout the red line, but I'd love to hear the reasoning on "exposing players to injury".

 

That said, if you want to go back to ties, I'd suggest giving a tie 0 points, since neither team "won the points". Don't split the points, no one plays for ties. everyone would go for it, no one can afford to leave points on the table.

 

I knew you'd get a kick outta that one!! :rofl:

 

Maybe "exposing players to injury" is a little bit of a reach. I'm basically saying that making guys play an extra 5 min on however many OT occasions, is more of a chance to open up the possibility of maybe pulling a hammy or taking one to the knee. Probably a little bit of a stretch but a possibility nonetheless.

 

Either way, I'm just not really for it. to me, Pete...it's a side show. It displays talent, sure...but I don't think it's the right way to settle a 60 minute battle of teams.

 

Gimme that old time rock and roll, baby!! =)

 

I do like the "center ice tilt between the goalies". That would be perfect!!! :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the shootout, but it could be worse. Soccer uses shootouts to determine championships. How shitty would that be?

 

Ask Peter Forsberg :rofl:

 

But seriously, soccer is a fucked up sport but I kind of admire their commitment to "These are our shitty rules, and we'll live and die by them."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shootout and 3v3 are practically the same. One is 1 on 0, the other is 2 or 3 on 0, usually the result of some random bounce.

 

Wait a few seasons and the 3 on 3 will lose its luster. Just like "no ties!", and 4v4, and the shootout all did previously.

 

 

I would like to see more coincidental minors called, with the potential of 4v4 and 3v3 during regulation. That "fight" yesterday should have been 4 on 4 for 2 (or 4) minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of regulation ties increased substantially with the initial introduction of OT and then especially with the advent of the loser point. There are a ridiculous number of regulation ties now. FLA has 8 and we are in the second week of November. Before all this started, 8 would be a fairly typical number for a whole season. Whatever "excitement" is generated by OT is offset by the lack of excitement in arranged truces in tie games during the third period. It used to be that the home team or favorite was gunning like mad for the win in a game tied in the third period. No more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The number of regulation ties increased substantially with the initial introduction of OT and then especially with the advent of the loser point. There are a ridiculous number of regulation ties now. FLA has 8 and we are in the second week of November. Before all this started, 8 would be a fairly typical number for a whole season. Whatever "excitement" is generated by OT is offset by the lack of excitement in arranged truces in tie games during the third period. It used to be that the home team or favorite was gunning like mad for the win in a game tied in the third period. No more.

 

That's kinda where I was going with this thing. The sideshow bullshit I think takes away from the game itself. 2 teams fight it out for 60 minutes and it gets decided by a fucking metamorphosis of what we know to be hockey...a 3v3. Now don't get me wrong I love seeing breakaway's as much as anyone, but the shootout has watered that feeling down as well. You see it so often, it's not even exciting.

 

I remember when a penalty shot used to make me leave a little shit ball in my PJ's with excitement...and now it's like. "Fuck it!, I can see this pretty much any game I watch".

 

I can totally see your guys' points of view, but I just don't like it...never did. I love the NHL playoff hockey format with the full OT, and continuous play until sudden death. I hope to god they don't change that too one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NHL has gotten so confusing with standings. It used to be just points. Now we have regulation wins and regulation plus overtime wins. Shootout gives fans an opportunity to see offensive players against goalies.

 

For standings, I'm in favor of regulation and five minute overtime. If tied after overtime, but teams get 1 point for tie in standings. If you want 'exhibition' shootout so fans get a winner/loser, fine.

 

But it would be nice to just see standings go back to W-L-T... 2 points for win, 1 point for tie. Teams with the most points make the playoffs.

 

Tiebreaker (for teams with same point totals) is number of wins, followed by goal differential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ties. Just get rid of the loser point and do away with the shootout. These guys can skate 3 on 3 until someone scores. It wouldn't take that long before someone scores. Less than a full period's worth of hockey in probably 99% of games.

 

Like this idea the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only 15% of OT games get to the shootout. If you increase the 3x3 time, that would drop even more. So far no teams we know have conspired to screw around with the loser point to mess with the point standings.Would be very hard to do anyway. Still the loser point makes OT games worth 50% more than regulation games; that makes no sense. In effect penalizes teams that win games in regulation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I'll take 3v3.

 

Hey man, where are you today? I figured you'd gimme hell for peeing my pants after the Kakko 3v3 OT winner last night!!

 

"sure Ozzy, now you think it's great!"

 

Nevermind, I did it myself for you!! :rofl:

 

...but I still want my old time rock and roll, bubba!!! =)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NHL has gotten so confusing with standings. It used to be just points. Now we have regulation wins and regulation plus overtime wins. Shootout gives fans an opportunity to see offensive players against goalies.

 

For standings, I'm in favor of regulation and five minute overtime. If tied after overtime, but teams get 1 point for tie in standings. If you want 'exhibition' shootout so fans get a winner/loser, fine.

 

But it would be nice to just see standings go back to W-L-T... 2 points for win, 1 point for tie. Teams with the most points make the playoffs.

 

Tiebreaker (for teams with same point totals) is number of wins, followed by goal differential.

 

Here we go!!!

 

Fletch and I are "Traditionalists"!! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...