Blueshirt Banter Discussion: Does The Overtime Policy Need To Be Changed?
by Brandon C. on Jan 13, 2012 9:00 AM EST
in Blueshirt Banter Discussion
Email
PrintSince the lockout ended and the shootout was added to the NHL there have been a plethora of posts suggesting ways to change the NHL overtime policy.
As you may know, the current system is 5 minute 4 on 4 overtime, then shootout. In the past, there was the possibility of a tie if neither team scores in overtime.
Fans have complained that a "skills competition," the shootout, can decide the fate of a hockey team, rather than traditional hockey. Our own New York Rangers faced this problem, as they were eliminated in the shootout vs. the Philadelphia Flyers.
While the NHL is unlikely to change the system, I would like to propose my own change.
-10 minutes of 4 on 4 hockey
If scoreless after that, the two teams would then play:
-10 minutes of 3 on 3 hockey
If the game is still somehow scoreless, I am fine with any system other than a tie. That's the one part I love about the new rules, the no ties.
How would you change the system, if you would at all?
47 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You’ll never see the 10 minutes of one, and then 10 of the other. That’s an extra period of hockey, especially for inter-conference games where teams don’t want to give up a point to a rival.
There’s nothing wrong with the current system in terms of actual hockey. The shootout is exciting, and I’m more of the old-school type of fan. It’s probably great for the casual fan too. The problem is how things are weighted in terms of points. The loser point needs to go; it’s sole purpose is to give losing teams more points so that the playoff races are tighter, which adds weight and drama to games to gin up viewership and advertising.
Make it 2 points for a regulation or 4-on-4 5 minute overtime win, 1 point for a shootout win, and 0 points just for making it to overtime. It lessens the impact of shootouts while still keeping them relevant, and makes it less likely teams will carry players like Eric Christensen who provide little else.
You could also go to a 3-2-1 system where it’s 3 pts. for a regulation win, 2 for an overtime win, and 1 for a shootout win. I think this will lead to less shootouts as teams are going to push hard to win games in regulation or OT, and should make for much better hockey IMO. Sometimes when teams are tied in the 3rd, it becomes a boring defensive battle because each team knows it can earn a cheap point just dumping the puck in and retreating.
My .02$
Agree on all points. 10min plus 10min is a lot of extra hockey. Though 5min 4on4 and 5min 3on3 could be interesting.
Aucune clause de Mouvement
by Blueshirt in Paris on Jan 13, 2012 9:31 AM EST up reply actions
Yup. That extra period of hockey wouldn’t fly during the regular season because a lot of games are on tight schedules due to any number of factors (TV broadcasts, train schedules, stadium needs (like an afternoon hockey game and a basketball night game)). That’s just too much. 5 minutes of each I’d be ok with, but nothing after that.
Couldnt agree less. Play 4-on-4 for 20 minutes. In my world if there’s no winner then, its a tie.
Most teams fly charters, and can deal with the extra travel. Most teams games are also on their controlled TV networks too, so its unlikely to be a TV problem. [NBC would likely hate my idea for its weekend games tho]. 20 minutes of 4-4 hockey is about 5-7 minutes more of ice time for players, hardly something that is going to get them in trouble physically.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/PopsTwitTar
Since 2005-06, there have been 511 NHL playoff games. Out of those 511 games, 46 games took longer than 10 minutes of OT to decide a winner. 24 of those 511 games took more than 1 OT period to decide a winner. The average length of a playoff OT is 13:06.
http://www.coppernblue.com/2012/1/4/2681049/a-case-for-full-overtime-in-the-nhl
I wouldn’t add the extra 3v3 period, but 10 min of 4v4 instead of 5min should solve a bunch of issues. As it is, ~45% of OT games are ended in the 5 min OT. As is also pointed out there, that sample size is 5v5 with playoff teams, thus generally higher quality teams. Regular season games + 4v4 hockey shouldn’t take that long to finish.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Jan 13, 2012 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think we can compare playoff OT to regular season. 2 completely different animals.
Playoffs should say the same, as with the rules changes they seem to be done much quicker as you quoted. 10 minutes of 4v4 is ok.
Not saying change the playoffs, just pointing out that a full period of 4v4 OT likely wouldn’t be the epidemic that it appears. Almost half end in 5 minutes as is.
Plus in the playoffs, a couple long games skew that average length. A full 5v5 OT in the regular season probably wouldn’t take that long, but 4v4 should really speed it up.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Jan 13, 2012 10:02 AM EST up reply actions
Yup, good points. I’m just thinking they would never make that change on the off-hand chance a game actually goes that long. IIRC didn’t MSG change the Ranger home-start times from 7:30 to 7:00 to better fit the train schedules? Probably wrong /shrug.
More 4v4 would be exciting though.
W/ no TV timeouts, a full 20-min 4v4 shouldn’t take more than about 30 min. (regular 5v5 periods take about 40 min thanks to TV) With the shootout, I think the current format tacks on an extra 10-15 min or so, so you’re only talking about an extra 15-20 min tops.
Yeah, some people will have to take a later train, but if it bothers them that much, let them leave early.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Jan 13, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
Wouldnt be an issue. For me, heading in NJ, the NE corridor has trains running around 9:30, 9:55, and 10:15-ish. There’s plenty of NJ bound trains even the games go longer. No idea about LIRR.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/PopsTwitTar
I would have trains at 9:45, 10:05, 10:41, and 10:56. So yeah, I might get caught waiting around for the 10:41 on the off-chance that the 1-2 games I go to a year run a full 20-min OT, but that’s not really a big deal to me.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Jan 13, 2012 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
This. 4-on-4 OT’s go quickly – there’s less stoppages, so more running time means more chances for errors on changes, and, I believe, more goals. Make it so the its played under 2nd period bench positions, and its even better.
Glen Sather is a Hockey Genius.
http://twitter.com/ThGeneralissimo
http://twitter.com/PopsTwitTar
Good point, adding in the long change will speed it up even more.
Blueshirt Banter - Where Rangers' Fans Matter
Tracking the Rangers - Numbers don't lie. They just don't agree with you.
Twitter: RangerSmurf
"Oh, that sensible and sober* Rangers fan guy who is cool, actually" - Dominik, Lighthouse Hockey
*Statement has not been verified nor regressed
by George E. Ays on Jan 13, 2012 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
I think all games should be worth the same amount of points.
I agree, first change is to throw out the loser point. But don’t then go and make certain types of wins 2, or even 3, and others 1. Here’s my argument for that: If you establish a way to decide a winner, give them the points for being a winner. Giving a team 2 points instead of 3, for an OT win, it’s saying, “well you won, but you could have won better.” A team could win better in regulation if they scored more goals.
One alternative I’ve read actually kept the loser point and was interesting. Make regulation win 3, an OT win 2 (with 1 loser point to opponent) and 0 for a loss. Every game awards 3 points one way or another. It’s intriguing, although I don’t think it matters that all games award the same number of points.
Some people hate ties, but the system in use in soccer is good. 3 points for a win, 1 to each for a tie, 0 for a loss. I’d be fine with or without ties, it’s really not a big issue to me. It’s too bad it’s not feasible to just let them keep playing. But I definitely think they should take the consolation points away and make the teams chase it and take risks if they need points that badly. The “prevent” defense late in games (and OT if they’re really treading water) to get one point or hold out for a shootout is so annoying to watch.
proof read
I totally contradict the first sentence I wrote.. what I meant was all wins should be the same reward.
Good argument, though I think a lot of purists and some folks in general don’t like the shootout having as much weight as a regular win because it’s a skills competition and nothing to do with ‘team.’ I think it should stay, but shouldn’t count as much as a ‘team’ win.
2 points for any win, 10 mins of 4 on 4, 1 point for a shootout win (keeps the allure of the shootout, which I think is exciting, but lessens its impact since it removes that ‘team’ aspect.)
Thats why I feel 3-3-2 makes the most sence if your going to keep the looser point around which would be 1. Or 3-2-1 with no looser point.
They would never play a possible extra 20 minutes of overtime for a game. I dont mind the current format I just dont like the point values they achieve. I dont think a dominating regulation win should be equal to a team squeaking out a 3-2 shootout win when teams clearly play it safe late in the game and take their chances with an OT/SO. It should be 2 points for a Reg/OT win & 1 point for a SO win. And please get rid of the charity point.
GO PACK GO -- 13 Time World Champions
Let's Go Rangers
UH Huh You Know What It Is ZUCCA-RELLO ZUCCA-RELLO
you win and lose as a team
This system is a jokeyou play three periods then you change the rules on how to win in ot.I think this is just one think why some think hockey is s joke . It rewards the losing team with a point flat out you lose you lose no points. 2 It becomes a skills compition not a team win. 3 not every team has shoot out skills player or as many then the other team so i think it becoms unfair . i rather see like playoffs 5 on 5till you win or 1 period and tie. we are the only sport that rewards the losing team not MLB NBA NFL and i dont give a shit about europe or soccer
Problem with 3 on 3 is...
what if someone takes a penalty. Do you play 3 on 2?
Also, (just my opinion but) I think the shootout should only be used as a tie breaker in the standings. AKA if you play 5 mins of 4 on 4 overtime and no winner is decided it’s deemed a tie however you would still have a shootout as a separate category in the event of a tie in the standings at the end of the season. Just my opinion but why wouldn’t something like that work?
3 on 3 is stupid. It's like the NFL going to 7 on 7 drills for OT.
The game changes so much in 3 on 3 that its essentially a skills competition event. Almost as stupid as the shootout. Does the NBA end OT games with a game of HORSE or free throw competition? No because it would be stupid.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 13, 2012 12:07 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Why make OT less like regulation?
Do a 4 on 4 for ten minutes, eliminate shootout. Teams get 2 points for OT wins and 0 points for losses/ties. You sure as shit wont see any boring ovetimes.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 13, 2012 12:04 PM EST via Android app reply actions
Play till it's over
playoff rules, all the time. First team to collapse on the ice loses.
With an 82 game schedule...
….thats a great idea……not. These guys don’t even want to be on the ice for 5 extra minutes let alone all the cockimame senarios you guys are dreaming up.
Absolute Worst Ranger Fan!!!!!!....yet incredibly realistic and usually correct.
5 minutes seems really short. I guess if I was king I would make OT 10 minutes of 4 on 4 and also change the points to 3-2-1, but the 2 would be for an OT/SO win and the 1 would be for an OT/SO loss. I don’t think the loser point is going to go away, so I’d keep it but make every game worth 3 points.
3 3 2 is the answer IMO, and get rid of ROW as a tie breaker. All points count at the end of the season. 3 3 2 gives more motivation to put the game away in regulation or OT VS SO, not to say the players are not motivated to win in OT rather than SO but it should help. Under 3 3 2 1 point awarded to the loosing team. Or 3 2 1 No points awarded to the loosing team.
The shootout is stupid.
If you like the shootout you probably prefer masturbation to intercourse and don’t even understand or appreciate the difference between the two.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 13, 2012 1:02 PM EST via Android app reply actions
Thank you, spanky!
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 13, 2012 2:24 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Ties suck more than anything. Of course I and most would rather see a win during regulation or overtime but going to a game and leaving with a tie is not too satisfying wouldn’t you agree. Seen too many of those games in the past I enjoy some closure to the game one way or another. I wouldn’t care if it was a coin toss some one has to win.
The one thing I will never ever understand is how someone could suggest having a tie in professional sPorts.
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
by Brandon C. on Jan 13, 2012 1:18 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Was a great thing during the trap/hook-and-ski era because hey, who the hell would want to watch the Devils play.
You have to make Ties = Losses
Imagine 4 on 4 OT with both teams trying for the win because they get zero points if it ends in a tie. That would manufacture drama.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 13, 2012 2:26 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
I can see you’re still in Dennis-the-Menace mode, but I actually agree with you. Don’t award loser points, and make the team part of the game (regulation and OT) worth more than a shootout=lot of offensive play and teams trying to win instead of just holding on.
The Word Is . . .
. . . loser! Loser, with one ‘o’. As in, “You are a loser!”
Your English could not be looser.
Ties just bore me. I wouldn’t want to ever go to a game with no ending. It’s just a silly thing to have.
Follow me on twitter @nyybrandonc
Co-Manager/Writer for Pinstripe Alley, Editor/Writer for Blueshirt Banter
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball."
"Every day is a great day for hockey."
Thats why you make it equivalent to a loss.
by Gabby the Gutless Sniper on Jan 13, 2012 4:51 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
If you don’t have the shoot out to determine the winner…. What are the alternatives?……time of possession in the OF zone numbers, shots on goal numbers, scoring chances. I don’t think that would fly but it may force harder play. I think most would rather see the shoot out determine the winner over percentage figures but what are the other options. We all know PA is not going to go for the game being longer than it already is.
Just make every game worth 2 points, period.
You win, you get 2 points. You lose, you get zero. The only thing you get from “making it” to overtime or shootout is the opportunity to win it. These two features of the game are only there to try to make scoring easier to break the stalemate – not to be a reward onto itself.
To me less players is boring..
I say we add a player to each side so 6 on 6. Pucks would be flying back and forth across the ice and the game would speed up in a grand finale.. INstead of ending in a slower more drawn out fizzle. Even the shoot-out is kind of weak if you ask me.
SHoot-outs are what...
They use to warm-up the goalies.. That just seems backwards to me to decide games.
Are u tawkin' ta me??
Personally, I don’t have a huge problem with the SO, but I do think OT in general is more exciting.
The whole “integrity of the game” is not a big deal to me either, TBH, b/c shootouts are not boring at all, for sure, just maybe not as exciting nor team-oriented as an unexpected OT goal. But then again, there have been some ridiculously lame/fluke OT goals over the years vs. some incredible SO goals, so that could go either way really.
But what I find absolutely LAUGHABLE and utterly HYPOCRITICAL is how so, so many detractors of the SO, not just you Brandon, but many many others, keep on whining and complaining and complaining and whining about how the SO is not a “real” way to decide a hockey game…
…and then have the nerve to come out and propose 3-on-3 for OT??? WTF? 3-on-3? THAT’S hockey? 1 D and 2 FWDS?? or even worse, 2D and 1 FWD? Wait. I know. Let’s take it a step further and only play at one end of the ice and you have to take the puck back to the red-line to get possession like we used to do for street hockey with one goalie (ala half court B-ball.) I mean that’s still “hockey” right? Or since it’s 3 guys, Rupp, Pruster and Bickel can just go out and beat the crap out of the other team into submission. Da DAH!! We win!!!
Fine if you want to argue to keep or even extend OT ( 4-on-4 at the very least) vs. the SO, but do NOT even consider proposing 3-on-3, especially with the rationale that its configuration somehow “preserves” the essence of the game.
PPPLEASE! :(
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Rangers Schedule
Next 5 Games
New Jersey
|
Sun 05/27 | TBA |
Last 5 Games
|
@
New Jersey
|
Fri 05/25 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
New Jersey
|
Wed 05/23 | L 3 - 5 |
|
@
New Jersey
|
Mon 05/21 | L 1 - 4 |
|
@
New Jersey
|
Sat 05/19 | W 3 - 0 |
|
New Jersey
|
Wed 05/16 | L 2 - 3 |
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Who are the Non-Smythe candidates for the Devils, Kings?
- End is near for Rick Nash, Blue Jackets as trade discussions set to resume
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Driven DeBoer delivers Devils back to NHL's elite
- Driven DeBoer, fired by Panthers, delivers Devils back to the land of elite in just one year
- Bruins acquire son of Hall of Famer Ray Bourque
- Bruins add a Bourque: Chris Bourque, son of Hall of Famer Ray Bourque, acquired from Capitals
- Shinnimin named CHL's Player of the Year
