NHL GMs Discussing Changes to 3-on-3 OT

[Albatrosss]

11 minutes ago, Sharpshooter said:

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.

3 points for regulation win, 2 for OT, and 1 for losing in OT. Any OT

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

On 11/16/2023 at 2:37 PM, Ozzy said:

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

LOL, I thought you liked me Oz??

 

Sleepless nights in April is one thing, but staying up all night to watch a game against Arizona Coyotes in the middle of November, just to see the team lose in OT and get 1 point??? There's not enough Jägermeister in this country to get me through that shit.

 

5 minutes of OT in the regular is more than enough!

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

15 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

3 points for regulation win, 2 for OT, and 1 for losing in OT. Any OT

I've pitched this idea a few times. That's how they do it in the Norwegian league.

 

They won't do it because 3 points for wins would create a bigger gap between the top and the bottom, which I assume the league don't want.

[Sharpshooter]

Move to the United  States so you don't have insomnia and sleep deprivation for half the year! 

[Ozzy]

14 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

LOL, I thought you liked me Oz??

 

Sleepless nights in April is one thing, but staying up all night to watch a game against Arizona Coyotes in the middle of November, just to see the team lose in OT and get 1 point??? There's not enough Jägermeister in this country to get me through that shit.

 

5 minutes of OT in the regular is more than enough!

 

Just thinkin' of ya, my man!! 

 

I can't imagine the NHLPA allowing a regular season game to go all night....especially with travel and shit like that.

 

This whole topic I think, is much-ado-about-nothing.  They're not gonna change this format, and I think this is about the best thing both sides can agree on for the time being.  They don't like the loop, and the re-group....tough shit!

 

Whatever they instill, the coaches will figure another way to get around whatever they put in.

 

Here's the best idea:  Leave the fucking game alone!!

Wanna make it better??  Create more schools to teach officials how to ref a game properly! 

[jsm7302]

I like the idea of 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for a shootout win. No loser points. Keep the format the same.

[Albatrosss]

6 minutes ago, jsm7302 said:

I like the idea of 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for a shootout win. No loser points. Keep the format the same.

If loser gets no points, you don’t need 3 points for regulation win. 2 points for any win will do. The other team doesn’t get any points anyway 

[Cash or Czech]

Just go by W-L record. Suddenly those teams claiming to be .500 at 35-35-12 aren't so good anymore.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Cash or Czech

[jsm7302]

54 minutes ago, Albatrosss said:

If loser gets no points, you don’t need 3 points for regulation win. 2 points for any win will do. The other team doesn’t get any points anyway 

Decreasing the points through the shoot out will make teams leave it all on the ice knowing their bounty will be less if they don't score. I get what you're saying, I think our trains of thought are just on different tracks. Either way ridding the loser point is a great idea.

[BlairBettsBlocksEverything]

Aside from it being 3 on 3, I think its just weird to have random rules specific to OT, like shot clocks, 2 line pass back in effect, no leaving the zone, etc.

 

I think the only fix I would do is make the 3 on 3 be 10 minutes. current system has its flaws, but when it's going back and forth, it's genuinely very exciting. 

 

Im fine with th OT 'loser' point but wouldnt complain if they got rid of it. other than that though, making all these random rules that only apply to OT play will just make the game more confusing and less fun to view for new/casual fans.

 

Imagine the NFL decided that in OT you get one less lineman, but you also arent allowed to run the ball more than X amount of times, but you also need to throw more than 10 yards from the line of scrimmage. 

 

 

 

 

[Br4d]

On 11/16/2023 at 8:58 AM, Keirik said:

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

 

The problem with all OT solutions that are not short and sweet is that most arenas shut off beer sales midway through the 3rd because they don't want the liability for drunk drivers driving away from their venues.

 

Once the beer sales are shut down, well poof go the revenues and why would anybody in their right mind keep an arena open without all the revenue streams flowing?

[Pete]

42 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

The problem with all OT solutions that are not short and sweet is that most arenas shut off beer sales midway through the 3rd because they don't want the liability for drunk drivers driving away from their venues.

 

Once the beer sales are shut down, well poof go the revenues and why would anybody in their right mind keep an arena open without all the revenue streams flowing?

This is a reach. And what about playoff games that go 4OTs? Youre suggesting owners lose money on that? Unlikely.

[Pete]

McIndoe on Puck Soup made a good point, anyone other than a casual fan realizes offense is generated by the regroup, it's not a defensive tactic, it's an attacking one. His opinion was just that it takes so long, so just make 3:3 10 minutes.

 

I'm starting to agree.

[Br4d]

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

This is a reach. And what about playoff games that go 4OTs? Youre suggesting owners lose money on that? Unlikely.

 

Playoff games are an outlier because most teams do not make significant revenue on them anyway because they're not participating.  Playoff games that go 4 OT's, like .01% of the total pool maybe.

 

From a revenue standpoint I'm pretty sure most of the money is made by the start of the 3rd period and whatever happens after that is almost irrelevant.

 

It's not even like the teams can have special promotions or consumable sales for OT because nobody knows we're getting there until it happens and there's no prep time to take advantage of it.

[Pete]

38 minutes ago, Br4d said:

Playoff games are an outlier because most teams do not make significant revenue on them anyway because they're not participating.

What does this have to do with the point you were just trying to make?

 

Look, there's really no reason they can't go three on three until it's over. The chances of three on three last thing 20 minutes are slim. 

[Br4d]

Just now, Pete said:

What does this have to do with the point you were just trying to make?

 

Look, there's really no reason they can't go three on three until it's over. The chances of three on three last thing 20 minutes are slim. 

 

Anything that is open-ended is bad.

 

What they want is something that ends quickly and decisively and leads to as few ties as possible, within that general framework.

 

The problem with 3-on-3 is that it leads teams to playing a completely different style of hockey than the rest of the game.  You get all that looping back to control the clock and to set things up so you get most of the effective chances in OT.

 

They'd do better just to go straight to a shootout and if they really wanted no ties just let them keep taking shots until one team has a 2 goal lead or a 1 goal lead after each team has had 3 shots.

 

Simple, quick and everybody out of the building by twenty minutes after regulation has ended.

[Br4d]

5 minutes ago, Pete said:

What does this have to do with the point you were just trying to make?

 

Look, there's really no reason they can't go three on three until it's over. The chances of three on three last thing 20 minutes are slim. 

 

I only brought it up because you pushed the red herring of a 4 OT playoff game, which we see like once every 5 years or so.

[Pete]

5 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

I only brought it up because you pushed the red herring of a 4 OT playoff game, which we see like once every 5 years or so.

Red herring? I'm not pushing anything. You brought up beer sales as a reason not to extend 3:3. Sorry, but that's hogwash. If you extended to 10 minutes, it would likely end before that. The players get too tired.

 

Frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong with the way they do it now. The only suggestion I would make is to do the shootout earlier because if the team's new going into OT or the third period who was getting the extra point, you might see them hang it out a little more and create more broken plays and offense that way.

 

Otherwise I think you're just looking way too deeply into it

[Pete]

11 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

Anything that is open-ended is bad.

 

What they want is something that ends quickly and decisively and leads to as few ties as possible, within that general framework.

 

The problem with 3-on-3 is that it leads teams to playing a completely different style of hockey than the rest of the game.  You get all that looping back to control the clock and to set things up so you get most of the effective chances in OT.

 

They'd do better just to go straight to a shootout and if they really wanted no ties just let them keep taking shots until one team has a 2 goal lead or a 1 goal lead after each team has had 3 shots.

 

Simple, quick and everybody out of the building by twenty minutes after regulation has ended.

When you say "what they want" , I'm assuming you mean the NHL, but they are the ones asking the teams if there's a vibe that three on three has become stale due to the regroups.

 

So let's be really careful before we try to assume what the league wants. 

[Br4d]

Just now, Pete said:

When you say "what they want" , I'm assuming you mean the NHL, but they are the ones asking the teams if there's a vibe that three on three has become stale due to the regroups.

 

So let's be really careful before we try to assume what the league wants. 

 

"They" always means the owners.   The NHL acts as agent for the collective ownership group.  The body that actually makes most of the decisions that we think the Commissioner or "the league" makes is the NHL Board of Governors which consists solely of the owners and 2 additional appointees by each team.  

[Pete]

2 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

"They" always means the owners.   The NHL acts as agent for the collective ownership group.  The body that actually makes most of the decisions that we think the Commissioner or "the league" makes is the NHL Board of Governors which consists solely of the owners and 2 additional appointees by each team.  

Yes, I understand how decisions are made with the league, I was simply asking who you meant by "they". 

 

I disagree that owners want a quick end to the games. I don't really think they care either way as long as their team stands to benefit from whatever rules exist. 

[Br4d]

Just now, Pete said:

Yes, I understand how decisions are made with the league, I was simply asking who you meant by "they". 

 

I disagree that owners want a quick end to the games. I don't really think they care either way as long as their team stands to benefit from whatever rules exist. 

 

They definitely do not want the building to be occupied one minute longer than necessary.  It's expensive to light, heat and condition the air in a building the size of an NHL arena.  Security costs money.  Staff to manage people and other hazards cost money.  The sooner the building empties out and all the rest of that stuff stops the better.

 

[BrooksBurner]

On 11/16/2023 at 2:44 PM, 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).

And if 69% are completing within 5 minutes, adding another 5 min theoretically means 69% of the remaining 31% are completing. That puts it in the 90% range of all OT games completing in a 10 min OT. It should be a no brainer.

[Pete]

21 minutes ago, Br4d said:

 

They definitely do not want the building to be occupied one minute longer than necessary.  It's expensive to light, heat and condition the air in a building the size of an NHL arena.  Security costs money.  Staff to manage people and other hazards cost money.  The sooner the building empties out and all the rest of that stuff stops the better.

 

You're getting too deep into it.

[Br4d]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

You're getting too deep into it.

 

You're like the magic 8-ball.