NHL GMs Discussing Changes to 3-on-3 OT

[Phil]

No offense, because I know these aren't expressly your ideas, but making shit more complicated isn't a good idea. Imagine trying to explain to a new fan of any age or background some of these "solutions" being pitched. It's insane. "Oh, so during regulation, which is three 20 minute periods, the two-line pass rule doesn't exist, but when the game is tied and it goes to OT, not only do we go from 5v5 to 3v3, but now the two-line pass exists, but only works if they're going backwards..."

 

My fucking eyes are rolling into the back of my head just writing this shit.

[Br4d]

No OT.  Just a shootout with 5 maximum shots each team.  If things are still tied after the shootout each team gets a point.  If not winner gets two and loser gets none.

 

Playing for a tie at the end will benefit the better team on offense.  Defense should only take you so far.

[siddious]

10 minute regular 5v5. Loser gets nothing. 
 

keep the shoot out in after. Ties are insanely stupid I can’t believe that was ever even a thing. 

[Ozzy]

Ok, I'll meet you guys somewhere in the middle here;  I could for some kind of "method to the madness" here.

 

I'll go for Regular season OT, but make it like Playoff OT....No bullshit rules, and let it play out as long as it goes.  ....and no shootout.

Same as the Playoffs...That I would go for!

 

I can just hear @Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc already!!  "I stayed up until fucking 7am to watch that quadruple OT game last night and we lose anyway!!"  LOL

[jsm7302]

12 minutes ago, siddious said:

10 minute regular 5v5. Loser gets nothing. 
 

keep the shoot out in after. Ties are insanely stupid I can’t believe that was ever even a thing. 

I'm on this bandwagon. A game ending in a tie is essentially the same score as before the game and a giant waste of everyone's time from the fans down to the players.

 

I'm a fan of the 3v3 OT. It is very exciting. I'd say shut the clock off and play 3v3 till someone scores because it will happen more sooner than later.

[siddious]

1 minute ago, jsm7302 said:

I'm on this bandwagon. A game ending in a tie is essentially the same score as before the game and a giant waste of everyone's time from the fans down to the players.

 

I'm a fan of the 3v3 OT. It is very exciting. I'd say shut the clock off and play 3v3 till someone scores because it will happen more sooner than later.

My only real gripe with the 3 on 3 is that I hate how teams basically do it. I feel like it’s 3’s mode in chel it’s so kitschy.

[jsm7302]

6 minutes ago, siddious said:

My only real gripe with the 3 on 3 is that I hate how teams basically do it. I feel like it’s 3’s mode in chel it’s so kitschy.

I feel like it's a quicker way to end a tie that doesn't rely on forwards and goalies. It is still a hockey game. 4v4 doesn't end quick enough. The mad rushes end to end and the slick passes make it fun. I do enjoy watching the shootout for the sick moves but it isn't a real fair way to end a game. Regardless, 2 points for winner, 0 points for loser.

[Keirik]

10 hours ago, Phil said:

No offense, because I know these aren't expressly your ideas, but making shit more complicated isn't a good idea. Imagine trying to explain to a new fan of any age or background some of these "solutions" being pitched. It's insane. "Oh, so during regulation, which is three 20 minute periods, the two-line pass rule doesn't exist, but when the game is tied and it goes to OT, not only do we go from 5v5 to 3v3, but now the two-line pass exists, but only works if they're going backwards..."

 

My fucking eyes are rolling into the back of my head just writing this shit.

Well, yeah, but it's equally to me as silly that we do 3 v 3 and shootout in the first place. To me, that would be like baseball taking away the third baseman, center fielder, and catcher to a coupe of innings before going to a home run derby to decide who gets half the spoils. It all seems silly. 

[Ozzy]

3 minutes ago, Keirik said:

Well, yeah, but it's equally to me as silly that we do 3 v 3 and shootout in the first place. To me, that would be like baseball taking away the third baseman, center fielder, and catcher to a coupe of innings before going to a home run derby to decide who gets half the spoils. It all seems silly. 

 

You came up with an idea one night that I remembered we all liked.  For the life of me, I can't remember what it was!!  LOL  ...go figure!!!

 

[Keirik]

1 minute ago, Ozzy said:

 

You came up with an idea one night that I remembered we all liked.  For the life of me, I can't remember what it was!!  LOL  ...go figure!!!

 

I think that was an idea on how to get free beer though 

[Ozzy]

37 minutes ago, Keirik said:

I think that was an idea on how to get free beer though 

 

Ahhhh, That's right!!!  LOL 

 

...speaking of which..... 

 

After Thanksgiving....you're coming out!!

Edited November 16, 2023 by Ozzy

[Phil]

On his usual Wednesday spot on The Jeff Marek Show, Wyshynski said that apparently 69% of all games that go to OT this year are completed in OT. In other words, we're pitching solutions for a non-existent problem (that too many games are going to shootout).

[jsm7302]

6 minutes ago, Phil said:

On his usual Wednesday spot on The Jeff Marek Show, Wyshynski said that apparently 69% of all games that go to OT this year are completed in OT. In other words, we're pitching solutions for a non-existent problem (that too many games are going to shootout).

Proposing changes would have the opposite effect actually and send more games to the shootout imo.

[Sharpshooter]

69%? Nice.

[Pete]

29 minutes ago, Phil said:

On his usual Wednesday spot on The Jeff Marek Show, Wyshynski said that apparently 69% of all games that go to OT this year are completed in OT. In other words, we're pitching solutions for a non-existent problem (that too many games are going to shootout).

I heard that too, but that's not what they're solving for. They're solving for three on three being boring because of all the regroups. 

[RJWantsTheCup]

Get rid of the shootout and just play 3 on 3 until someone scores.  Loser gets zero points.

Edited November 16, 2023 by RJWantsTheCup

[jsm7302]

44 minutes ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Get rid of the shootout and just play 3 on 3 until someone scores.  Loser gets zero points.

Sometimes the simple answer is yet so elusive......

[Phil]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

I heard that too, but that's not what they're solving for. They're solving for three on three being boring because of all the regroups. 

 

Right, but some of the solutions we're hearing are just so incredibly complicated. There's no way they're going to solve that, and will probably have an adverse affect of sending even more games to the shootout.

I guess I just don't really see the issue here. NHL coaches will always ruin fun. It doesn't matter what you do to counter it. It's against their own self interests (job security) to sit back and accept high-risk hockey, no matter how much you design it to occur.

[Phil]

2 hours ago, RJWantsTheCup said:

Get rid of the shootout and just play 3 on 3 until someone scores.  Loser gets zero points.

 

This is an on-paper solution, not an in-reality one. The league can't afford to have games going on for eternity through the regular season and the NHLPA will never sign off on this because of the wear and tear it'll produce on players.

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

Right, but some of the solutions we're hearing are just so incredibly complicated. There's no way they're going to solve that, and will probably have an adverse affect of sending even more games to the shootout.

I guess I just don't really see the issue here. NHL coaches will always ruin fun. It doesn't matter what you do to counter it. It's against their own self interests (job security) to sit back and accept high-risk hockey, no matter how much you design it to occur.

Yea, I don't disagree, I'm just saying Wysh POV had nothing to do with what the NHL feels the issue is. It's not that games don't get decided, they were asking clubs if the feeling what that it was now boring due to the regroups. We don't even have any real data that says anyone cares about the regroups, so people are trying to solve for a non-problem right now.

[Sod16]

The biggest problem with 3-3 OT and SO is that neither bears any relationship to what it takes to win games in regulation or playoff games.  It's about like settling a tie baseball game with a tobacco spitting contest.  

 

The other problem is that it encourages conservative play in the third period of tie games and results in many more regulation ties than was the case back before you had OT or SO.  The stats bear this out.  The number of regulation ties is ridiculous.

[Albatrosss]

4 hours ago, Sod16 said:

The biggest problem with 3-3 OT and SO is that neither bears any relationship to what it takes to win games in regulation or playoff games.  It's about like settling a tie baseball game with a tobacco spitting contest.  

 

The other problem is that it encourages conservative play in the third period of tie games and results in many more regulation ties than was the case back before you had OT or SO.  The stats bear this out.  The number of regulation ties is ridiculous.

Unless you take away a loser’s point, im afraid teams will play for OT and guaranteed point in the last half of the 3rd period. Maybe that’s what NHL wants, for the teams to be as close in the standings as possible, so there’s more excitement towards the end of the regular season. 

[Sharpshooter]

8 hours ago, Albatrosss said:

Unless you take away a loser’s point, im afraid teams will play for OT and guaranteed point in the last half of the 3rd period. Maybe that’s what NHL wants, for the teams to be as close in the standings as possible, so there’s more excitement towards the end of the regular season. 

That's exactly what they want, and why the loser point was instituted in the first place.

[Albatrosss]

1 minute ago, Sharpshooter said:

That's exactly what they want, and why the loser point was instituted in the first place.

I must admit it is exciting not knowing which team will make the playoffs pretty much to the last regular season game. 
so fuck it, keep things the way they are and lets stop complaining..lol

[Sharpshooter]

Just now, Albatrosss said:

I must admit it is exciting not knowing which team will make the playoffs pretty much to the last regular season game. 
so fuck it, keep things the way they are and lets stop complaining..lol

It is exciting, but getting points for losing also makes some teams look better than they really are when looking at the standings. Mainly, I'm just not a huge fan of shootouts and them having a say on who can make the playoffs. They're exciting for sure, but I don't know. I'm at least glad the league has rules that make regulation wins more valuable than shootout wins when it comes to tiebreakers and that sort of thing.