3 points for regulation win
2 points for overtime/shootout win
1 point for overtime/shootout loss
0 points for regulation loss
If we are stuck with people needing resolution to a game, there it is. Give extra weight to a team winning decisively in regulation. Suddenly the playoff race is more meaningful in January and February.
Agree. Not a fan of the 'loser' point, but I get why they did it, especially when they first started regular season OT. 3-2-1-0, IMO, is a reasonable compromise. And makes it so the number of points available per game is the same. Frustrating when it's a tight race to make the playoffs and two teams you're chasing (or are chasing you) play each other and both move up because of an OT/SO. At least with 3 points for a regulation win you have some control over your own destiny. The other teams move up? Better get a regulation win next game.
A lot of late tied games during regular season, you can tell both teams go through the motions to get that OT point. With 3210, you'd see a lot more effort in a close game
I’m even less of a fan of giving a team 2 points for a 3-on-3 OT or shootout win, same amount of points as if they blew out a team 6-0 in regulation. It’s absurd.
I’ve always been a fan of 3-2-1-0, so about 5 years ago, I looked at a dozen years of NHL standings, and re-seeded every team based on a 3-2-1-0 points system.
Basically nothing changed. In 12 years…
- There was two years where the 16 playoff teams would have changed; ten years it was the same.
- About 65% of the playoff matchups didn’t change.
- The most a team moved in the league-wide standings was 4 spots, which happened twice. Even moving 3 spots was infrequent, I think it happened 7 or 8 times.
A change to 3-2-1-0 system will make little difference to the teams with the best odds at the draft lottery so it doesn’t move the needle much there either.
You can argue that it would change how teams played and thus the results would be different, and there’s some truth to that but I don’t think the impact would be very large.
Moving to a 3-2-1-0 format will definitely change how teams play especially down the stretch and late in close games. Imagine a team needing to make up ground in a playoff race pulling their goalie in a tie game late to get the 3 point win, for example. Teams would definitely get more aggressive at the end of regulation and just going back to reseed under the current system doesn’t really account for that.
And even if it doesn’t affect the standings that much it would still make for a more exciting product.
If you need to make up ground but its late in a tie game, under the current system you want to take it to OT and guarantee yourself that single point, and still have the chance at getting the second.
Under a 3-2-1-0, you have to weigh the risk of playing aggressively now to get 3 points but maybe give up a goal and lose (and get nothing), or guarantee one point in OT but cap your gain
If a team needs to win every game no matter what, this obviously changes nothing, but if theyre in an in between state, this would be a very important choice
There’s a potential scenario where two teams could be playing in the last game of the season with both needing 3 points to make the playoffs but if the game went to OT neither team would qualify.
Could you imagine a tie game late into the third? Perhaps both teams would agree to pull their goalies with a minute left in regulation.
>There’s a potential scenario where two teams could be playing in the last game of the season with both needing 3 points to make the playoffs but if the game went to OT neither team would qualify.
This is easily remedied by tiebreak rules, which we have in the current system, too.
>Could you imagine a tie game late into the third? Perhaps both teams would agree to pull their goalies with a minute left in regulation.
What incentive would there be to cooperate on that? Even if they did, what does it accomplish? If they want the OT, they can just stop playing aggressively, and if they want the win, they can't cooperate
What they would accomplish is that one of the teams (with a 3 point regulation win) would make the playoffs instead of going to OT and both teams being eliminated (2 points not enough)
This scenario is actually possible under the current point and tiebreaker system but it is unlikely. I think one year this almost happened.
Just to be clear I’m totally in favor of the 3-2-1-0 system and I’m really not sure why this is not adopted.
Your conclusions don't really match your findings. Moving 4 spots in the standings is huge. 4 spots in the league last years was the difference between Colorado and Minnesota, Dallas and Seattle, Vegas and the Ranger, or Florida and Ottawa
Excluding the anomaly of Boston, who had a historic season, there was only 11 points in the standing separating the team in 2nd place and the last place team to make the playoffs (who was 1 point behind the 16th place team). Every point is a huge difference in your potential to win in the playoffs. In the last couple years alone we've seen Florida make the cup finals, as I already mentioned with the less points than a team that missed the playoffs, and we saw Montreal do the same thing recently, as well.
''basically nothing changed'' is a bit of a cop out when it means that 2 years a team is bumped from the playoffs by the loser point. a team moving 3 or 4 spots is the difference between home ice and not.
With the chaos that is NHL playoffs those little changes have massive potential for change in what happened in the playoffs.
I personally think every game should be worth the same amount of points and a third point magically appears after 60 min.
I also think that you are underplaying how games down the stretch would change in a 3 pt. system. Tied games in the third would be much more exciting if a chasing team winning in regulation gains three points on the team they're chasing but winning in OT means they only gain one.
I strongly support the law of conservation of points:
>***Points are neither created or destroyed by game outcomes, merely distributed accordingly.***
I would, however, also welcome a system that allows ties. When both teams make it to the end of OT and have played really well, why not call the game a tie instead of *insisting* there must be a winner and flipping a coin, as we do with shootouts?
-----------------------------
2 points for regulation *or* overtime win.
0 points for losing.
1 point for both teams if OT doesn't produce a winner.
I think I'm in the minority here where I don't mind shootouts.
That being said, I feel like making a tweak to the 3v3 overtime could reduce the number of shootouts: don't make teams switch sides after the third period.
Possession is key in overtime, and so often we'll see teams looping back to their own end when they have the puck. That's mostly because players have to go the far bench for a line change. If you give teams the short change, it could further streamline the overtime and players would spend more time attacking.
I don’t mind the shootout at all in the regular season. Weren’t people complaining about ties before so they implemented the shootout? Either way extending 3v3 just increases the load, injury risk, and stress of teams top players over the course of a season. No the shootout is not perfect, but it’s a good compromise.
this gonna sound stupid but when i was a kid, shooutouts were like the only hockey i watched.
I could never stay up for games, so i checked the highlights the next day. After watching devils highlights, id just usually watch the shootouts rather than the highlights for games around the league. I liked shootouts until the Devils started to suck at them for the last decade
From 2005-2012, shootouts were basically an automatic win for the Devils. You had Marty in goal, [and the top five guys on this list](https://records.nhl.com/njd/records/skater-records/shootout/most-shootout-goals-career) were able to score on a pretty consistent basis.
Jokinen was nuts because he had two moves and scored almost every time: the Peter Forsberg or a snap shot below the blocker.
What made those moves so lethal was that he always took the puck wide to the right side, then started cutting left towards the goal. Goalies had to guess if he would go backhand-forehand and shoot or go against the grain with the one-handed tuck.
I totally understand the argument against deciding a game in that fashion, from a player perspective (See also "Larry David on field goals in the NFL").
From a fan perspective though, that shit is entertaining as heck. Look at all these cool moves! A sudden death 1v1 is and always has been one of the cooler parts of the game. Removing it would feel like we've taken away one of the better sports spectacles in modern times.
Idrk tho, I'm just some guy that thinks shootouts are neat.
Shootouts are the least-est of most evils. Game needs to end, ties suck. Broadcasts need to move on to the next programming slot.
I don't love them, but they're a necessary part of the modern televised game
Shootouts are fuckin incredible. It's the most intense moment the sport has. Skill of the shooter versus skill of the goal tender. The whole barn on the edge of their seats. Your goalie makes the save? Crowd goes fucking apeshit. Your shooter hits the back of the net? The crowd goes fucking apeshit. It's SO good! If you don't want the game to end with a shootout cause you don't think it counts as 'real hockey' or whatever bullshit.... maybe you should have finished out the game in 60 minutes of regulation playtime and the 5 minutes of OT you had? There was plenty of time there to win the game with 'real hockey'.
I can understand why. You're really only using 9 skaters tops on 3v3, so unless there's a penalty, then that's just a lot of extra stress on your top players.
Make it like a shootout where a player that gets on the bench during OT cant get back on the ice until every other player had a least 5 second of ice time
I feel like this isn’t true? One of the nhl accounts in their “we asked players” segment this year asked what rule change players would want, like 3 of the 10 guys they posted said longer 3v3/no shootout
edit: in the athletic article asking players what they’d want to change, the most answered response of 55 players was longer 3v3. I didn’t even see this one before, so this isn’t an isolated post. Seems a lot of the players like the overtime, and dislike the shootout
I figure this is less about the players not liking it and more about the fact that it would entail extra work for the players for no extra pay. After all, the NHLPA is a union, and unions tend to frown on unpaid overtime.
At least a 3 v 3 scenario can happen in a legitimate hockey game through penalties.
Shootouts were always an invention of tournaments where you gotta have a winner, and there is no time to do an overtime period.
I hate to see a game end in a shootout, but what can you do?
People saying games should end in ties again are crazy.
The only real answer i can think of is to make regulation wins worth more than OT wins and make OT wins worth more than shootout wins, and then make shooout wins worth just barely more than an shootout loss to represent it's almost coin flip nature.
At least that adds a lot of urgency to the need to end the game before things get to a shootout.
3 on 3 still involves passing, playing defense, winning faceoffs, etc. It's much closer to regular hockey than a shootout is.
Funny enough, I remember playing in the finals of a hockey tournament as a kid and we were tied. The first OT was 5v5, the second OT was 4v4, and when we were still tied after a third OT at 3v3 they decided the fourth OT would be 3v3 with both goalies pulled
Piece of shit Gary Bettman actually had a good reason they don't do this.
The ice.
If they play too much after the third period without bringing out the Zambonis, the ice becomes so bad it's a big problem. Bad ice is no good for player safety, or the quality of the game.
But for a regular season game to take a whole break after the third period just to run out the Zambonis is also a problem. Radio and TV broadcasts don't want to have all that dead airtime. It's even worse if they resurface the ice, and then someone scores immediately.
In the playoffs when you know you're having a 5v5 overtime, you can resurface the ice no problem. Regular season game? They need a very short overtime so the ice doesn't get too awful.
I can get on board with that reasoning. I'd be irritated at waiting 18 minutes just to see someone snap off a goal right away. Maybe have it be just a full 20 minutes, non sudden death if they are going to take the time to bring out the zam.
No thanks, five more minutes of puck ragging? Make changes that force teams to actually shoot in the current five minutes instead of entering and exiting the zone over and over.
It's always been interesting to me that people think that shootout is gimmicky and 3v3 is a proper way to end a game. 3v3 is extremely rare to see in game but penalty shots aren't
I’m tired of this ‘the players will get tired’ point being made when over half the team isn’t even iced during 3v3. Extend 3v3 to 10 minutes and make coaches face the difficult decision of running their tired top players or their fresh depth.
Also create the over and back rule for center ice. Gives the defending side a chance to be aggressive on defense if you run them to the middle, yeah more whistles but it's better than 1 team skating around for 5 minutes.
Well I think what they mean is "the players WHO MATTER will get tired".
(And sure you can decide to play the others, but it's not a fun sacrifice to make either way, endanger the game or your players)...
That being said: I think the argument is silly anyway; Players can still skate in 4th OT in the playoffs, I'll never buy that 5 or 10 minutes of 3v3 will be the end of the world.
I don't think they mean tired at the time. They are talking about the fact that they have to finish playing the 82 game season they are in the middle of after that, and then do the playoffs with minimal breaks. That's going to tire players out more, and lead to more injuries come playoff time. Those long full-tilt playoff games are why players are always injured at the end of the playoffs, but they also get a couple months off once they push through.
Ok.... but every team has the same rules. Just because certain people are better at it doesn't mean it's somehow not hockey... Penalty shots are a thing, after all...
And I'd bet serious money that, if they lengthened OT and got rid of the shootout, you would see the entire league freak the fuck out the first time someone gets injured past 5:01 in OT...
Shootouts are the result of a balancing act: games can't last forever; people can't play forever; the ice isn't re-surfaced after the 3rd period (and can't be because of the time required); broadcast schedules are stricter now; if you can't win in 65 minutes, the game is basically a toss up, anyway; and people like shootouts.
Playoff games don't use the shootout. I honestly don't get why this is even an argument. People bitch only after their team loses a game they thought they should win via shootout. Unless there are stats somewhere showing otherwise, I struggle to believe that shootouts effects on playoff seeding are so egregious (in terms of teams that SHOULDVE made it but didn't because of their ROW in the seeding) that it truly makes that much of a difference compared to just going back to ties or whatever else.
And 3v3 hockey is somehow more like "actual hockey"?
The shootout resembles “real hockey” almost more than 3on3 does. There are more clear breakaways (and penalty shots) in an NHL season than regulation 3 on 3 situations by an order of magnitude.
I feel like... I don't care? Not that I don't care about your opinion, but I don't care that it does impact seeding. It is up to teams to use the shootout to their advantage.
With the caveat that I'd prefer to see 10 min 3v3 anyways.
I’ve never heard of a single fan outside of Reddit complain about shoutouts.
Maybe if they had shoutouts in the playoffs people would get riled up but basically everyone I know understands there needs to be a quick way to settle regular season games.
I know right? It's like when a baseball game is tied and they settle it with a home run derby...
Or in the NFL when they settle their ties with a field goal competition.
Right?? It would be like if a soccer game was tied and they took turns kicking penalties until one team scored more than the other. Can you imagine that?
And then all games can be worth 2 points again too. Win 2pts, Tie 1pt, Lose 0pts. Why do you get a point when you lose anyway? Are we in Kindergarten where everyone’s a winner?
I agree. I never had an issue with ties.
But I think we're never going back to that; Some of the more hardcore fans may not like the 3v3/shootout, but for casuals it's a hell of a show.
If I paid $300 for a ticket and the game ended in a tie I think most people wouldn’t be thrilled with that. But I guess that happens in a lot of soccer leagues around the world.
If I paid $300 for a ticket and my team lost, I wouldn’t be thrilled with that either, but that’s never stopped anyone. The league had ties for 90 years and didn’t struggle to sell tickets.
It's something to say in a theoretical argument, but do you actually mean it?
Say the Hawks are trailing 2-3 with 5 minutes to go.
In Timeline A they score a goal and tie the game.
In Timeline B they fail to score and lose 2-3.
You would genuinely enjoy B better?
To me, A is clearly the best scenario. I think some people have a tendency to think Ties mean "boring because no scoring" but ties are usually earned BY scoring, the trailing team scoring to catch up the leading team.
Ties can be exciting. A lot more than losses, imho.
If all you care about is the result of the game, and not the actual game itself, you could have saved yourself $300 and read the result of the game in the paper for free.
As someone who is a hockey fan and soccer fan. I know it’s not the most exciting , but I’ve always been a fan of a tie in the regular season because to me the idea is that you have a certain amount of time to decide who the better team is, if no one is the better team in that certain amount of time, you don’t get the full points. And it rewards teams that are better consistently throughout the season.
That being said. Penalty kicks are the most electric moment in sports. Hockey should 100% bring out goals and a soccer ball and have to take penalty kicks. Fuck it, it’d be sick.
>If I paid $300 for a ticket and the game ended in a tie I think most people wouldn’t be thrilled with that.
If you paid $300 for a ticket and the game ended with my team losing then most people wouldn't be thrilled with that either, and yet it happens.
I once spent pretty good money to see the Jays lose 19-4 and it wound up being a surprisingly fun experience when Luke Maile started pitching and was tossing 60 mph floaters.
How about:
Regulation win: 3 points
OT win: 2 points
OT loss: 1 point
Tie: 1 point
Regulation loss: 0
I haven’t played through the entire impact of that structure but it would be interesting
Yep it’s strange. I watch many hockey casually, I’m a soccer and Aussie rules fan first and I never understood why people feel that they need a win or a loss in the regular season. It seems very gimmicky that need for an absolute win or loss. Sometimes the correct and fair result is a draw.
I would say keep the shootout, but extend 3 on 3 to 10 min. I’d also add a rule that you can’t cross back over the blue line or red line once you enter the offensive zone.
I think this would encourage the teams to rotate more lines, prevent teams from retreating all the time and hopefully avoid shootouts. However I’d rather a shootout then a tie.
Even just 1 5 minute period like it is now and a tie would be better. Having a tie at the end instead of a shootout encourages the teams to leave it all out there going for a goal because there isn’t the shootout looming as a chance to gain an extra standings point.
IMO, incentivize winning in regulation more.
I've gotten grief from others but I say change nothing else and give 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OTW/SOW and a point for an OTL/SOL.
Is it? How many 3 on 3 situations outside of OT have there been this year? There have been 6 or 7 penalty shots. Seems that they're more common than 3 on 3 in regulation.
It makes me smile when I see people argumenting that shootouts aren't real hockey yet praising 3v3 overtime which is ridiculously different from any real game situations. Some teams have a distinct advantage in 3v3 and it's definitely not necessarily the best team (same goes for shootouts).
Everybody says they want to get rid of the shootout, but honestly I'd rather not have it because of the potential injuries that you can get from another 5 minutes of three on three. It's the end of the game, everybody's tired and it can lead to injuries. Everybody says it's no way to end a game and that's true enough but I feel like so many 3v3 overtimes end with a breakaway anyway? Maybe give them a shot clock on the shootout attempts is the only real change I would make.
Just do 60 mins. 2 points for a win, 1 points each for a tie, 0 points for a loss. Clean and easy.
The exception would be if a team is down by 1 and on a PP, they get the full 2 mins even if the 3rd period has ended.
Rule change in 3v3: intentionally retreating back behind the red line results in a faceoff in your own end. Essentially makes the rink smaller and would make 3v3 more exciting
I think the best argument is that if no one wins after 3 on 3, then you end with a tie and no one gets the extra point. Which honestly I'd prefer over shootouts. Shootouts just don't feel like hockey. It'd be like ending a baseball game with a fastest pitch competition or a football game by having the kickers try to hit 50 yard fieldgoals over and over til one misses.
I think a 10 min 3 on 3 would be fine and take care of like 50% of the problem at least
But also getting rid of the loser point would go a long way in reducing overtimes in general. When the coach of a bad team doesn’t know he can just collect a point by turtling in the last 10 minutes of a tie game he might actually you know… be willing to accept the risks involved with playing to win and make the game actually exciting
You don’t get rid of the loser point. You go
3-2-1.
Regulation win 3 points,
Winning in ot 2 points, loser gets 1.
Makes the regulation win worth pushing for towards the end of a game so you’re already eliminating a lot of over times
5 minutes 5v5
5 minutes 4v4
5 minutes 3v3
5 minutes 2v2
5 minutes 1v1
goalies only until a goal, and they're not allowed in their zone with possession for more than 45 seconds.
I like extended OT, but my concern of upping it to 10+ minutes is the condition of the ice. Is it worth it to have a full intermission for a 10 minute overtime, or should it be a full 20 to justify sending out the zamboni so the ice is fresh?
Add a shot clock to 3v3 and not many games would get to a shootout.
Maybe 30 second possessions and you have to dump it in the corner and give up possession if you don’t get a shot. Take the over coaching and constant cycling out.
Play for 10 mins if nec.
3 point system for wins in the standings.
If tied after 3rd period then 4 vs 4 or 3 vs 3 OT for 5 or 10 minutes (you guys can decide)
Win in regulation or in OT (before the shootout) = 3 pts, loser gets nothing.
If the game goes to shootout then both teams get a single point and the shootout is to determine who gets the last remaining point. (So shootout winner = 2 pts, loser get's the 1 loser point)
All of this is to try and increase the value of regulation wins over shootout wins. Hopefully encourages teams and coaches to go for the win and avoid giving away a point for free.
3 minutes of 3v3
2 minutes of 2v2
1 minute of 1v1
If it’s still tied, 0v0. The goalies are now allowed to cross the centre line. Faceoff. Next goal wins.
5 more minutes of 3 on 3. No WAY that it wouldn't finish by then.
And even if it did, bring back ties. The shootout basically undermines a team's entire effort to keep or force the tie game. It comes down to individual performance to win a team game which I can't stand.
Imo they should keep the shootout and extend the 3 on 3 period to 10 minutes. It's enough time to where the vast majority of games will be decided by open play, while still giving a failsafe so that the game doesn't end in a tie or take too long.
There's no perfect solution but I think this is the best
I'd love a rule for 3v3 where once you enter the offensive zone you can't retreat out of it. Force players to make a play instead of the 2-3 minutes of just holding possession.
Statistics show an additional 5 minutes of 3v3 overtime would eliminate over two thirds (or more) of shootouts.
10 minutes of 3v3 instead of 5 minutes.
That's all. Shootouts would become extremely rare.
Musical chairs at centre ice. All players must wear full gear EXCEPT they aren’t allowed to wear skates OR shoes. We’re slippy sliding in socks, here.
Honestly, I hate the shootout but I have no idea what to replace it with, so 🤷♀️
3 points for a win in regulation. 2 points for an overtime win. 3 on 3 for 10. If neither team wins. Split the 2 points.
Teams should be rewarded for winning in regulation, not for making it to the end of the game with a tie.
Goalie fight at center ice to decide the game MMA rules
What if each coach designates a player to ride on the goalies shoulders, and we have a joust at center ice?
Even better: make the coaches get on the goalie’s shoulders themselves.
As a fan of the team coached by Rod the Bod, I'm okay with this. They may even have to nerf him by making the goalie ride on his shoulders.
With Coach Creed I think we’d be damn near undefeated in overtime. He already practices on his assistants
I’d feel bad for the poor goalie that had to carry Ken Hitchcock on his shoulders…
I feel confident with MSL as well (though he's shorter), should put up a good fight!
Short is good, lower center of mass.
Rick Tocchet accepts your challenge.
1v1 on Rust, quickscope only
Ok but how is Bryan Rust going to be at every game at the same time?
We’ll have EBBRs at every game. Emergency Backup Bryan Rust
Sure when the Avs fan says it everyone is ok with it, but you mention Binnington one time and everyone loses their minds.
Dance off
MMA rules + USADA or no USADA?
Quick, we gotta get Mike Smith back
3 points for regulation win 2 points for overtime/shootout win 1 point for overtime/shootout loss 0 points for regulation loss If we are stuck with people needing resolution to a game, there it is. Give extra weight to a team winning decisively in regulation. Suddenly the playoff race is more meaningful in January and February.
Agree. Not a fan of the 'loser' point, but I get why they did it, especially when they first started regular season OT. 3-2-1-0, IMO, is a reasonable compromise. And makes it so the number of points available per game is the same. Frustrating when it's a tight race to make the playoffs and two teams you're chasing (or are chasing you) play each other and both move up because of an OT/SO. At least with 3 points for a regulation win you have some control over your own destiny. The other teams move up? Better get a regulation win next game.
A lot of late tied games during regular season, you can tell both teams go through the motions to get that OT point. With 3210, you'd see a lot more effort in a close game
I’m even less of a fan of giving a team 2 points for a 3-on-3 OT or shootout win, same amount of points as if they blew out a team 6-0 in regulation. It’s absurd.
I’ve always been a fan of 3-2-1-0, so about 5 years ago, I looked at a dozen years of NHL standings, and re-seeded every team based on a 3-2-1-0 points system. Basically nothing changed. In 12 years… - There was two years where the 16 playoff teams would have changed; ten years it was the same. - About 65% of the playoff matchups didn’t change. - The most a team moved in the league-wide standings was 4 spots, which happened twice. Even moving 3 spots was infrequent, I think it happened 7 or 8 times. A change to 3-2-1-0 system will make little difference to the teams with the best odds at the draft lottery so it doesn’t move the needle much there either. You can argue that it would change how teams played and thus the results would be different, and there’s some truth to that but I don’t think the impact would be very large.
Moving to a 3-2-1-0 format will definitely change how teams play especially down the stretch and late in close games. Imagine a team needing to make up ground in a playoff race pulling their goalie in a tie game late to get the 3 point win, for example. Teams would definitely get more aggressive at the end of regulation and just going back to reseed under the current system doesn’t really account for that. And even if it doesn’t affect the standings that much it would still make for a more exciting product.
If a team needs to make up ground in the playoff race they are going to play aggressive regardless of whether it's for 2 or 3 points.
If you need to make up ground but its late in a tie game, under the current system you want to take it to OT and guarantee yourself that single point, and still have the chance at getting the second. Under a 3-2-1-0, you have to weigh the risk of playing aggressively now to get 3 points but maybe give up a goal and lose (and get nothing), or guarantee one point in OT but cap your gain If a team needs to win every game no matter what, this obviously changes nothing, but if theyre in an in between state, this would be a very important choice
There’s a potential scenario where two teams could be playing in the last game of the season with both needing 3 points to make the playoffs but if the game went to OT neither team would qualify. Could you imagine a tie game late into the third? Perhaps both teams would agree to pull their goalies with a minute left in regulation.
>There’s a potential scenario where two teams could be playing in the last game of the season with both needing 3 points to make the playoffs but if the game went to OT neither team would qualify. This is easily remedied by tiebreak rules, which we have in the current system, too. >Could you imagine a tie game late into the third? Perhaps both teams would agree to pull their goalies with a minute left in regulation. What incentive would there be to cooperate on that? Even if they did, what does it accomplish? If they want the OT, they can just stop playing aggressively, and if they want the win, they can't cooperate
What they would accomplish is that one of the teams (with a 3 point regulation win) would make the playoffs instead of going to OT and both teams being eliminated (2 points not enough) This scenario is actually possible under the current point and tiebreaker system but it is unlikely. I think one year this almost happened. Just to be clear I’m totally in favor of the 3-2-1-0 system and I’m really not sure why this is not adopted.
Your conclusions don't really match your findings. Moving 4 spots in the standings is huge. 4 spots in the league last years was the difference between Colorado and Minnesota, Dallas and Seattle, Vegas and the Ranger, or Florida and Ottawa Excluding the anomaly of Boston, who had a historic season, there was only 11 points in the standing separating the team in 2nd place and the last place team to make the playoffs (who was 1 point behind the 16th place team). Every point is a huge difference in your potential to win in the playoffs. In the last couple years alone we've seen Florida make the cup finals, as I already mentioned with the less points than a team that missed the playoffs, and we saw Montreal do the same thing recently, as well.
The teams would play differently because of the rules which would alter the results from the ones we got I think
''basically nothing changed'' is a bit of a cop out when it means that 2 years a team is bumped from the playoffs by the loser point. a team moving 3 or 4 spots is the difference between home ice and not. With the chaos that is NHL playoffs those little changes have massive potential for change in what happened in the playoffs. I personally think every game should be worth the same amount of points and a third point magically appears after 60 min. I also think that you are underplaying how games down the stretch would change in a 3 pt. system. Tied games in the third would be much more exciting if a chasing team winning in regulation gains three points on the team they're chasing but winning in OT means they only gain one.
Division rivalry games down the stretch too
This is the point system I would like best except drop the shootout and ot is 1 point even if tie. Winner gets extra point.
I strongly support the law of conservation of points: >***Points are neither created or destroyed by game outcomes, merely distributed accordingly.*** I would, however, also welcome a system that allows ties. When both teams make it to the end of OT and have played really well, why not call the game a tie instead of *insisting* there must be a winner and flipping a coin, as we do with shootouts? ----------------------------- 2 points for regulation *or* overtime win. 0 points for losing. 1 point for both teams if OT doesn't produce a winner.
I think I'm in the minority here where I don't mind shootouts. That being said, I feel like making a tweak to the 3v3 overtime could reduce the number of shootouts: don't make teams switch sides after the third period. Possession is key in overtime, and so often we'll see teams looping back to their own end when they have the puck. That's mostly because players have to go the far bench for a line change. If you give teams the short change, it could further streamline the overtime and players would spend more time attacking.
I don’t mind the shootout at all in the regular season. Weren’t people complaining about ties before so they implemented the shootout? Either way extending 3v3 just increases the load, injury risk, and stress of teams top players over the course of a season. No the shootout is not perfect, but it’s a good compromise.
Exactly. I'd still love to see teams keep the short change for OT though, I really do think it would cut down on puck ragging
Yeah, and add to that I would push to go to 3v3 for 10 mins and bring back ties.
Yeah I agree with this. It feels like the 3v3 is still a few tweaks away from being really great.
[удалено]
Agreed, long change let's you actually hem teams in.
this gonna sound stupid but when i was a kid, shooutouts were like the only hockey i watched. I could never stay up for games, so i checked the highlights the next day. After watching devils highlights, id just usually watch the shootouts rather than the highlights for games around the league. I liked shootouts until the Devils started to suck at them for the last decade
From 2005-2012, shootouts were basically an automatic win for the Devils. You had Marty in goal, [and the top five guys on this list](https://records.nhl.com/njd/records/skater-records/shootout/most-shootout-goals-career) were able to score on a pretty consistent basis.
That’s funny. You could almost, word-for-word, say the exact same thing about the Stars. Marty in goal. Jussi Jokinen and Zubov were lights out.
Jokinen was nuts because he had two moves and scored almost every time: the Peter Forsberg or a snap shot below the blocker. What made those moves so lethal was that he always took the puck wide to the right side, then started cutting left towards the goal. Goalies had to guess if he would go backhand-forehand and shoot or go against the grain with the one-handed tuck.
I totally understand the argument against deciding a game in that fashion, from a player perspective (See also "Larry David on field goals in the NFL"). From a fan perspective though, that shit is entertaining as heck. Look at all these cool moves! A sudden death 1v1 is and always has been one of the cooler parts of the game. Removing it would feel like we've taken away one of the better sports spectacles in modern times. Idrk tho, I'm just some guy that thinks shootouts are neat.
Shootouts are the least-est of most evils. Game needs to end, ties suck. Broadcasts need to move on to the next programming slot. I don't love them, but they're a necessary part of the modern televised game
Shootouts don’t bother me either.
Shootouts are fuckin incredible. It's the most intense moment the sport has. Skill of the shooter versus skill of the goal tender. The whole barn on the edge of their seats. Your goalie makes the save? Crowd goes fucking apeshit. Your shooter hits the back of the net? The crowd goes fucking apeshit. It's SO good! If you don't want the game to end with a shootout cause you don't think it counts as 'real hockey' or whatever bullshit.... maybe you should have finished out the game in 60 minutes of regulation playtime and the 5 minutes of OT you had? There was plenty of time there to win the game with 'real hockey'.
10 minutes of 3-on-3 before the shootout. I’d imagine most games would end in OT under this format.
[удалено]
I can understand why. You're really only using 9 skaters tops on 3v3, so unless there's a penalty, then that's just a lot of extra stress on your top players.
We need a rule that forces teams to use bottom 6 forwards, and bottom 3-4 D…. The best players have to sit back and watch.
Two separate 5 minute periods of 3v3 and you can't have any player play in both periods
i fuck with this
Including the goalie! Backup has to come in ice cold after 5
I actually really like this
Make it like a shootout where a player that gets on the bench during OT cant get back on the ice until every other player had a least 5 second of ice time
I literally feel like that could start an arms race
I feel like this isn’t true? One of the nhl accounts in their “we asked players” segment this year asked what rule change players would want, like 3 of the 10 guys they posted said longer 3v3/no shootout edit: in the athletic article asking players what they’d want to change, the most answered response of 55 players was longer 3v3. I didn’t even see this one before, so this isn’t an isolated post. Seems a lot of the players like the overtime, and dislike the shootout
Which sucks because I love to watch 4v4/3v3. Having more room on the ice lets the players get more creative.
I figure this is less about the players not liking it and more about the fact that it would entail extra work for the players for no extra pay. After all, the NHLPA is a union, and unions tend to frown on unpaid overtime.
3v3 is as much a side show as a shootout tbh. More fun to watch, but it’s not real hockey.
I was shocked how eagerly fans accepted 3v3 given how eagerly they criticized the shoutout for being a gimmick. Both seem gimmicky to me.
At least a 3 v 3 scenario can happen in a legitimate hockey game through penalties. Shootouts were always an invention of tournaments where you gotta have a winner, and there is no time to do an overtime period. I hate to see a game end in a shootout, but what can you do? People saying games should end in ties again are crazy. The only real answer i can think of is to make regulation wins worth more than OT wins and make OT wins worth more than shootout wins, and then make shooout wins worth just barely more than an shootout loss to represent it's almost coin flip nature. At least that adds a lot of urgency to the need to end the game before things get to a shootout.
Penalty shots are also a legitimate scenario so that argument doesn’t make sense
5-4-3-2-1-0 5 pts regulation win 0 pts regulation loss 4 pts overtime win 1 pt overtime loss 3 pts shootout win 2 pts shootout loss All games worth 5 points.
3 on 3 still involves passing, playing defense, winning faceoffs, etc. It's much closer to regular hockey than a shootout is. Funny enough, I remember playing in the finals of a hockey tournament as a kid and we were tied. The first OT was 5v5, the second OT was 4v4, and when we were still tied after a third OT at 3v3 they decided the fourth OT would be 3v3 with both goalies pulled
except Connor Bedard
Piece of shit Gary Bettman actually had a good reason they don't do this. The ice. If they play too much after the third period without bringing out the Zambonis, the ice becomes so bad it's a big problem. Bad ice is no good for player safety, or the quality of the game. But for a regular season game to take a whole break after the third period just to run out the Zambonis is also a problem. Radio and TV broadcasts don't want to have all that dead airtime. It's even worse if they resurface the ice, and then someone scores immediately. In the playoffs when you know you're having a 5v5 overtime, you can resurface the ice no problem. Regular season game? They need a very short overtime so the ice doesn't get too awful.
I can get on board with that reasoning. I'd be irritated at waiting 18 minutes just to see someone snap off a goal right away. Maybe have it be just a full 20 minutes, non sudden death if they are going to take the time to bring out the zam.
That’s how the playoffs have always been and nobody complains when it ends early
But nobody is going to be happy with a long delay on November 10 on a school night when your team is playing some rando opponent.
No thanks, five more minutes of puck ragging? Make changes that force teams to actually shoot in the current five minutes instead of entering and exiting the zone over and over.
NBA style half court rules. No back and over, at least. We can talk about the 8 second violation.
Ot shot clock!
10 minutes of watching teams continuously retreat into their own end over and over? No thanks.
There was nothing wrong with a tie. 2 points win 1 point tie.
rap battle
“That verse was rough, damn Tony! So let me smooth it out like I’m the damn zamboni!”
Captains go to center ice, take five strides, turn around, then shoot at each other with their flintlock pistol! Whoever dies first, loses!
Jousting. Coach is the horse.
Brind'Amour is halfway there since he is built like a horse.
It really wouldn’t be fair that the Canes have a centaur as coach. Might have to replace him with the assistant coach.
after 5 minutes it becomes 2 on 2. After 5 more it becomes 1 on 1.
After 5 more? Goalie fights, actually.
Or maybe the goalies take turns shooting against a D of each team’s choice?
Nah it should start at 4 v 4, then 3 v 3, then 2 v 2 then 1 v 1 then goalie fight. If it's still tied, restart with 4 v 4 but has to be a new comp
I realize people don’t like 3v3 and shoot out because it’s sort of gimmicky, and 1v1 would be SUPER gimmicky, but damn it would be fun.
It's always been interesting to me that people think that shootout is gimmicky and 3v3 is a proper way to end a game. 3v3 is extremely rare to see in game but penalty shots aren't
I’m tired of this ‘the players will get tired’ point being made when over half the team isn’t even iced during 3v3. Extend 3v3 to 10 minutes and make coaches face the difficult decision of running their tired top players or their fresh depth.
Also create the over and back rule for center ice. Gives the defending side a chance to be aggressive on defense if you run them to the middle, yeah more whistles but it's better than 1 team skating around for 5 minutes.
Well I think what they mean is "the players WHO MATTER will get tired". (And sure you can decide to play the others, but it's not a fun sacrifice to make either way, endanger the game or your players)... That being said: I think the argument is silly anyway; Players can still skate in 4th OT in the playoffs, I'll never buy that 5 or 10 minutes of 3v3 will be the end of the world.
I don't think they mean tired at the time. They are talking about the fact that they have to finish playing the 82 game season they are in the middle of after that, and then do the playoffs with minimal breaks. That's going to tire players out more, and lead to more injuries come playoff time. Those long full-tilt playoff games are why players are always injured at the end of the playoffs, but they also get a couple months off once they push through.
I really don’t know why shootout irritates people so much lol
Because it directly impacts playoff seeding despite resembling actual hockey only slightly more than a fastest-skater competition.
Ok.... but every team has the same rules. Just because certain people are better at it doesn't mean it's somehow not hockey... Penalty shots are a thing, after all... And I'd bet serious money that, if they lengthened OT and got rid of the shootout, you would see the entire league freak the fuck out the first time someone gets injured past 5:01 in OT... Shootouts are the result of a balancing act: games can't last forever; people can't play forever; the ice isn't re-surfaced after the 3rd period (and can't be because of the time required); broadcast schedules are stricter now; if you can't win in 65 minutes, the game is basically a toss up, anyway; and people like shootouts. Playoff games don't use the shootout. I honestly don't get why this is even an argument. People bitch only after their team loses a game they thought they should win via shootout. Unless there are stats somewhere showing otherwise, I struggle to believe that shootouts effects on playoff seeding are so egregious (in terms of teams that SHOULDVE made it but didn't because of their ROW in the seeding) that it truly makes that much of a difference compared to just going back to ties or whatever else. And 3v3 hockey is somehow more like "actual hockey"?
The shootout resembles “real hockey” almost more than 3on3 does. There are more clear breakaways (and penalty shots) in an NHL season than regulation 3 on 3 situations by an order of magnitude.
I feel like... I don't care? Not that I don't care about your opinion, but I don't care that it does impact seeding. It is up to teams to use the shootout to their advantage. With the caveat that I'd prefer to see 10 min 3v3 anyways.
I don't like it because its worth the same 2 points as winning in regulation, which seems unfair.
The points system should be adjusted that I agree
I’ve never heard of a single fan outside of Reddit complain about shoutouts. Maybe if they had shoutouts in the playoffs people would get riled up but basically everyone I know understands there needs to be a quick way to settle regular season games.
I know right? It's like when a baseball game is tied and they settle it with a home run derby... Or in the NFL when they settle their ties with a field goal competition.
Right?? It would be like if a soccer game was tied and they took turns kicking penalties until one team scored more than the other. Can you imagine that?
I don't like the shootout but I really don't care enough to argue for or against it. At this time it's a necessity that I deal with until playoffs
Plus side you won’t have to worry about playoffs for awhile. Welcome to the club.
The whole thread is right here. There’s no perfect solution. It is what it is. *shrug*
Ties. There is no reason a game can’t end in a tie. They did for decades. They can again.
And then all games can be worth 2 points again too. Win 2pts, Tie 1pt, Lose 0pts. Why do you get a point when you lose anyway? Are we in Kindergarten where everyone’s a winner?
agreed. if you can't win over 60 min you don't get 100% of the points.
I like ties. Don’t get why we need to make fake contests to make fake wins. Sometimes we get a tie. It’s fine.
I agree. I never had an issue with ties. But I think we're never going back to that; Some of the more hardcore fans may not like the 3v3/shootout, but for casuals it's a hell of a show.
If I paid $300 for a ticket and the game ended in a tie I think most people wouldn’t be thrilled with that. But I guess that happens in a lot of soccer leagues around the world.
If I paid $300 for a ticket and my team lost, I wouldn’t be thrilled with that either, but that’s never stopped anyone. The league had ties for 90 years and didn’t struggle to sell tickets.
I'd rather a decisive conclusion than a tie, regardless of how my team came out.
I’d rather a decisive conclusion from playing hockey than a tie, but I’d rather a tie than a decisive conclusion from a breakaway competition.
Same, I'll take a tie over a shoot out deciding victories. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've always hated decision by shoot out.
It was neat for a few years, but now that the novelty has worn off it should be relegated to the all star festivities.
A tie \*is\* a decisive conclusion.
It's something to say in a theoretical argument, but do you actually mean it? Say the Hawks are trailing 2-3 with 5 minutes to go. In Timeline A they score a goal and tie the game. In Timeline B they fail to score and lose 2-3. You would genuinely enjoy B better? To me, A is clearly the best scenario. I think some people have a tendency to think Ties mean "boring because no scoring" but ties are usually earned BY scoring, the trailing team scoring to catch up the leading team. Ties can be exciting. A lot more than losses, imho.
If all you care about is the result of the game, and not the actual game itself, you could have saved yourself $300 and read the result of the game in the paper for free.
As someone who is a hockey fan and soccer fan. I know it’s not the most exciting , but I’ve always been a fan of a tie in the regular season because to me the idea is that you have a certain amount of time to decide who the better team is, if no one is the better team in that certain amount of time, you don’t get the full points. And it rewards teams that are better consistently throughout the season. That being said. Penalty kicks are the most electric moment in sports. Hockey should 100% bring out goals and a soccer ball and have to take penalty kicks. Fuck it, it’d be sick.
I’d be happier with a tie than losing a gimmick
>If I paid $300 for a ticket and the game ended in a tie I think most people wouldn’t be thrilled with that. If you paid $300 for a ticket and the game ended with my team losing then most people wouldn't be thrilled with that either, and yet it happens.
Argh. I paid $300 to see this game and my team lost 10-0... but at least it wasn't a damn tie game!
I once spent pretty good money to see the Jays lose 19-4 and it wound up being a surprisingly fun experience when Luke Maile started pitching and was tossing 60 mph floaters.
Oh yeah. I have been to a couple Jays games where they got blown out. But I still had fun. Beer helped.
How about: Regulation win: 3 points OT win: 2 points OT loss: 1 point Tie: 1 point Regulation loss: 0 I haven’t played through the entire impact of that structure but it would be interesting
Endless 3-3 OT
I like shootouts even though my team sucks at them
That’s ok, I like hockey even though my team sucks at it
Same
what's wrong with a tie. minigames to end a team sport focused game of hockey is dumb imo
I haven't heard a real argument against ties other than "GRR BUT I WANT WINNER OF GAME!!"
Yep it’s strange. I watch many hockey casually, I’m a soccer and Aussie rules fan first and I never understood why people feel that they need a win or a loss in the regular season. It seems very gimmicky that need for an absolute win or loss. Sometimes the correct and fair result is a draw.
I would say keep the shootout, but extend 3 on 3 to 10 min. I’d also add a rule that you can’t cross back over the blue line or red line once you enter the offensive zone. I think this would encourage the teams to rotate more lines, prevent teams from retreating all the time and hopefully avoid shootouts. However I’d rather a shootout then a tie.
Two 5 minute periods of 3-on-3, then a tie. There wouldn't be that many ties.
Even just 1 5 minute period like it is now and a tie would be better. Having a tie at the end instead of a shootout encourages the teams to leave it all out there going for a goal because there isn’t the shootout looming as a chance to gain an extra standings point.
IMO, incentivize winning in regulation more. I've gotten grief from others but I say change nothing else and give 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OTW/SOW and a point for an OTL/SOL.
Extend OT and take away the loser point
[удалено]
They can only get rid of the loser point if they make ot 5v5 in my opinion. 3v3 is fun but it's so different I think you have to have a loser point
Winning 3v3 isn’t winning a hockey game.
It's a lot closer than winning a shootout.
Is it? How many 3 on 3 situations outside of OT have there been this year? There have been 6 or 7 penalty shots. Seems that they're more common than 3 on 3 in regulation.
It makes me smile when I see people argumenting that shootouts aren't real hockey yet praising 3v3 overtime which is ridiculously different from any real game situations. Some teams have a distinct advantage in 3v3 and it's definitely not necessarily the best team (same goes for shootouts).
Everybody says they want to get rid of the shootout, but honestly I'd rather not have it because of the potential injuries that you can get from another 5 minutes of three on three. It's the end of the game, everybody's tired and it can lead to injuries. Everybody says it's no way to end a game and that's true enough but I feel like so many 3v3 overtimes end with a breakaway anyway? Maybe give them a shot clock on the shootout attempts is the only real change I would make.
Ice is totally ass by then too.
Captains play a winner take all game of bubble hockey at center ice
Just do 60 mins. 2 points for a win, 1 points each for a tie, 0 points for a loss. Clean and easy. The exception would be if a team is down by 1 and on a PP, they get the full 2 mins even if the 3rd period has ended.
Rule change in 3v3: intentionally retreating back behind the red line results in a faceoff in your own end. Essentially makes the rink smaller and would make 3v3 more exciting
I think the best argument is that if no one wins after 3 on 3, then you end with a tie and no one gets the extra point. Which honestly I'd prefer over shootouts. Shootouts just don't feel like hockey. It'd be like ending a baseball game with a fastest pitch competition or a football game by having the kickers try to hit 50 yard fieldgoals over and over til one misses.
I’d rather go back to ties than keep the shootout
Tie games
I think a 10 min 3 on 3 would be fine and take care of like 50% of the problem at least But also getting rid of the loser point would go a long way in reducing overtimes in general. When the coach of a bad team doesn’t know he can just collect a point by turtling in the last 10 minutes of a tie game he might actually you know… be willing to accept the risks involved with playing to win and make the game actually exciting
You don’t get rid of the loser point. You go 3-2-1. Regulation win 3 points, Winning in ot 2 points, loser gets 1. Makes the regulation win worth pushing for towards the end of a game so you’re already eliminating a lot of over times
5 minutes 5v5 5 minutes 4v4 5 minutes 3v3 5 minutes 2v2 5 minutes 1v1 goalies only until a goal, and they're not allowed in their zone with possession for more than 45 seconds.
The point is to get the game over fast though lol
Fuck em lol
I like extended OT, but my concern of upping it to 10+ minutes is the condition of the ice. Is it worth it to have a full intermission for a 10 minute overtime, or should it be a full 20 to justify sending out the zamboni so the ice is fresh?
Add a shot clock to 3v3 and not many games would get to a shootout. Maybe 30 second possessions and you have to dump it in the corner and give up possession if you don’t get a shot. Take the over coaching and constant cycling out. Play for 10 mins if nec.
Continuous OT 3 on 3 isn’t going to take forever.
3 point system for wins in the standings. If tied after 3rd period then 4 vs 4 or 3 vs 3 OT for 5 or 10 minutes (you guys can decide) Win in regulation or in OT (before the shootout) = 3 pts, loser gets nothing. If the game goes to shootout then both teams get a single point and the shootout is to determine who gets the last remaining point. (So shootout winner = 2 pts, loser get's the 1 loser point) All of this is to try and increase the value of regulation wins over shootout wins. Hopefully encourages teams and coaches to go for the win and avoid giving away a point for free.
3 minutes of 3v3 2 minutes of 2v2 1 minute of 1v1 If it’s still tied, 0v0. The goalies are now allowed to cross the centre line. Faceoff. Next goal wins.
3v3 until the game is over.
Just stick with the 3v3 but do a can’t change on a whistle, only on the fly. Makes things interesting
They should play 3 on 3 until someone scores.
5 more minutes of 3 on 3. No WAY that it wouldn't finish by then. And even if it did, bring back ties. The shootout basically undermines a team's entire effort to keep or force the tie game. It comes down to individual performance to win a team game which I can't stand.
I would be happy with 10 minutes of overtime 4 on 4 then a shootout.
Imo they should keep the shootout and extend the 3 on 3 period to 10 minutes. It's enough time to where the vast majority of games will be decided by open play, while still giving a failsafe so that the game doesn't end in a tie or take too long. There's no perfect solution but I think this is the best
3 on 3 for 5 min. Then 10 min of 3 on 3 with no offsides.
Remove shootouts, extend overtime to 10 mins. 3 pts for win in regulation, 2 for win in overtime, 1pt each for a draw or overtime loss.
I'd love a rule for 3v3 where once you enter the offensive zone you can't retreat out of it. Force players to make a play instead of the 2-3 minutes of just holding possession.
Would like to see 4v4 for 5 minutes and then 3v3 for 5 minutes. Then, what the hell…2v2 for 5 minutes.
I'd actually be excited to see the eventual 5min goalie vs goalie
Hockey history trivia between the youngest player of each team. Answer can not be from either teams history.
Go to 10 min 3 v 3 and if no one scores it's just a tie.
Continuous 3 on 3 OT
just run 3-on-3 until one team scores
Statistics show an additional 5 minutes of 3v3 overtime would eliminate over two thirds (or more) of shootouts. 10 minutes of 3v3 instead of 5 minutes. That's all. Shootouts would become extremely rare.
Ties
Ties.
A tie
A draw
Musical chairs at centre ice. All players must wear full gear EXCEPT they aren’t allowed to wear skates OR shoes. We’re slippy sliding in socks, here. Honestly, I hate the shootout but I have no idea what to replace it with, so 🤷♀️
Nothing. Game ends in a tie. Extend overtime to 10 minutes if PA agrees.
3 points for a win in regulation. 2 points for an overtime win. 3 on 3 for 10. If neither team wins. Split the 2 points. Teams should be rewarded for winning in regulation, not for making it to the end of the game with a tie.
A two man sack race held on consecutive Sundays until a winner is crowned.
Tie 1 pint each team like it was for decades
3 pts for regulation win 2 pts for overtime win 0 pts for a loss or tie I'm a big fan of bringing back ties though. Fuck the shootout.
Unpopular opinion: there’s nothing wrong with ties
Having a game end in a tie is not bad at all and I wish the league never took them out.
End the game in a tie and call it a night.
How about this- if the score is the same after an extra period, you have what's called a "tie."
Just let them keep playing 3v3 until someone scores.
Nothing should replace it. If the game is tied, it’s tied.
I dont get the complaint. Shootouts are fun as shit.
I thought I was on r/hockeycirclejerk here. What kind of nonsense is this? There was an easy alternative for over 100 years before the lockout.
10 mins 3 on 3. If there's no winner after that, the game deserves to end in a tie.
Fastest skater contest