NHL GMs Discussing Changes to 3-on-3 OT

[Scott]

 

[Ozzy]

I have a better idea!  Just do away with the whole fucking thing and give 'em a point apiece after 60 min!!

[Pete]

2 hours ago, Ozzy said:

I have a better idea!  Just do away with the whole fucking thing and give 'em a point apiece after 60 min!!

The alcohol is increasing its effect on you, please seek help immediately. Nobody should get a point for not winning a game.

 

60 minutes regulation, 5 minute three on three, shootout. That's three rounds of competition using various methods of play, whoever wins gets the points. Loser gets nothing. 

 

If you want to make it interesting, do the shootout before overtime. The loser of the shootout will obviously let it all hang out in OT, thereby creating more opportunity for counter-attacks. 

[Ozzy]

4 hours ago, Pete said:

The alcohol is increasing its effect on you, please seek help immediately. Nobody should get a point for not winning a game.

 

60 minutes regulation, 5 minute three on three, shootout. That's three rounds of competition using various methods of play, whoever wins gets the points. Loser gets nothing. 

 

If you want to make it interesting, do the shootout before overtime. The loser of the shootout will obviously let it all hang out in OT, thereby creating more opportunity for counter-attacks. 

 

I was never a fan of the shootout, Pete.  It's just not a "thing" for me.  I like the old school method.  Save OT for the playoffs where it's a novelty. 

 

...just my liking, man.  I will take you up on the alcohol though!! 

[Pete]

6 hours ago, Ozzy said:

 

I was never a fan of the shootout, Pete.  It's just not a "thing" for me.  I like the old school method.  Save OT for the playoffs where it's a novelty. 

 

...just my liking, man.  I will take you up on the alcohol though!! 

Losers should never get a point! 

[Ozzy]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Losers should never get a point! 

 

I'm referring to tie games.  If it's 3-3 after 3 periods, that's it...No OT, no skills competition...none of that crap.  Just a tie.  Each team gets a point, and they go home.

 

Old school!  You know, like back in the old days!  Where I feel young again!!  LOL

[Pete]

26 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

 

I'm referring to tie games.  If it's 3-3 after 3 periods, that's it...No OT, no skills competition...none of that crap.  Just a tie.  Each team gets a point, and they go home.

 

Old school!  You know, like back in the old days!  Where I feel young again!!  LOL

If you don't win the game you shouldn't get the point. Forget the charity points for ties. Play for a win. There's no playing for a tie in the playoffs.

[Ozzy]

4 minutes ago, Pete said:

If you don't win the game you shouldn't get the point. Forget the charity points for ties. Play for a win. There's no playing for a tie in the playoffs.

 

I was referring to Regular season, sorry dude....playoffs are a different animal.  They can play until doomsday in the playoffs, that's fine. 

 

Regular season, I like "60 minutes and then done".  Winner gets 2 and if there's a tie...one point apiece. 

That's just me, man.  I'm not a fan of the shootout.  The 5 minute OT I can live with, but I really just don't have a soft spot for the shootout.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Ozzy

[Sharpshooter]

I wouldn't mind getting rid of the loser point at all. I just want shootouts to be done with regardless. I am not a fan, and never have been. I'd rather bring back ties. Keep the 3-on-3 overtime and if no one scores, it's a tie with each team getting a point. If a team loses, they don't get a point.

[Cash or Czech]

Take away the OTL point. That'll solve a few things

[Pete]

1 hour ago, Ozzy said:

 

I was referring to Regular season, sorry dude....playoffs are a different animal.  They can play until doomsday in the playoffs, that's fine. 

 

Regular season, I like "60 minutes and then done".  Winner gets 2 and if there's a tie...one point apiece. 

That's just me, man.  I'm not a fan of the shootout.  The 5 minute OT I can live with, but I really just don't have a soft spot for the shootout.

Right but my point is they got rid of ties because teams started playing for ties. There are no ties in the playoffs, so why should there be ties in the regular season?

 

There are also no shootouts in the playoffs, so I get that logic too.

[BrooksBurner]

The shootout sucks. It should be OT 3 on 3 until someone scores. That’s it. Anything longer than 10-15 minutes would be a serious edge case. In terms of player exhaustion, the current iteration of 3 on 3 is basically just putting your 6 bestish players in open ice on for the full 5. Three quarters of the team doesn’t get used. Use the full team and it’s not an issue. If you’re worried about goalie exhaustion, there’s a backup.

 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by BrooksBurner

[Ozzy]

32 minutes ago, Pete said:

Right but my point is they got rid of ties because teams started playing for ties. There are no ties in the playoffs, so why should there be ties in the regular season?

 

There are also no shootouts in the playoffs, so I get that logic too.

 

The only thing I can say about ties in the regular season, is that "that's what I prefer".  That's it.  Just my opinion, that's all.  I love OT, but I think it's best saved for the playoffs.  Just my take.

 

[Albatrosss]

loser gets a point is a reflection of our time.  Everyone gets a prize

[Cash or Czech]

8 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

loser gets a point is a reflection of our time.  Everyone gets a prize

 

That rule was instituted in the 1999-2000 season.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Cash or Czech

[Albatrosss]

Just now, Cash or Czech said:

 

That rule was instituted in the 1999-2000 season.

its still our time.

 

i dont think 3 on 3 and shootouts were introduced before the lockout.  

[Sharpshooter]

25 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

its still our time.

 

i dont think 3 on 3 and shootouts were introduced before the lockout.  

Correct. The shootout was implemented the first year back. Overtime was still 4-on-4. I don't even remember the year they started doing 3-on-3. 

[Albatrosss]

first seaon after the lockout is when Malik scored that goal  in the 15th round of the shootout.  I was at that game.  it was glorious

[Cash or Czech]

41 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

its still our time.

 

i dont think 3 on 3 and shootouts were introduced before the lockout.  

 

I was talking about the point for an overtime loss

[jsm7302]

This seems unnecessary. The regrouping out of the zone is fine. The OTs are competitive at 3v3. This is changing something just for the sake of changing something. 

[Sharpshooter]

1 minute ago, jsm7302 said:

This seems unnecessary. The regrouping out of the zone is fine. The OTs are competitive at 3v3. This is changing something just for the sake of changing something. 

Agreed. It's not like these overtimes are becoming a bore fest or anything. They are still very entertaining far more than they are not. The regrouping and all of that is just part of what to do when playing 3-on-3 like that.

[Albatrosss]

20 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

Agreed. It's not like these overtimes are becoming a bore fest or anything. They are still very entertaining far more than they are not. The regrouping and all of that is just part of what to do when playing 3-on-3 like that.

idk about that.  the last couple of 3 on 3's were pretty boring.  

[The Dude]

3 on 3 stinks. Try 4 on 4. Or just go straight to a shoot out.  But definitely get rid of the automatic point for going to OT. 

 

I'm with Ozzy. The old rules with ties was better. Win get the 2 points. Lose. Get nothing. Tie, spilt it and go home. Idk, maybe 5 minute-  5 on 5- or 4 on 4 - OT and a shootout is the way to go.

 

No automatic points for reaching OT. That's rewarding failure.  

 

 

 

 

[Phil]

Gonna let everyone in on a little secret: whatever you create, NHL coaches will destroy in due time. Just like 3/3 OT. Just like PPs. Just like 5v5. Those who can, will, those who can't, clog, for lack of a better term.

 

I still think the simplest solution to all of this is to simply stop awarding points to teams who lose games. There's no greater incentive possible than "lose and you get nothing."

[Keirik]

A few thoughts that have been thrown out there on Sirius radio about this.

 

take away the ot long change. Make it easier for teams to change in ot so that there's less reason to go back oit of the zone. 
 

make the 3 v 3 a bit longer. 5 is kind of short. 
 

and a thought I had and haven't seen it mentioned. Bring back the two line pass rule for ot but instead of it being forward, make it a two line pass back rule to eliminate guys intentionally passing it out of their zone to their own half of the ice. Won't stop the constant possession totally but at least makes it a tad harder.