Don't know.
Adding the 4th player to the ice would be the easiest thing to do though vs trying to pull one player off.
NHL GMs approve 3-on-3 overtime, but what format?
- Thread starter Bodo Fenrirsson
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 23
- Views 2K
Adding the 4th player to the ice would be the easiest thing to do though vs trying to pull one player off.
Why even bother with a points system at all? Why not just go with a straight win-loss record? In the NFL teams don't get an 'atta boy' half of a win if they lose in OT. In the MLB teams don't get an 'atta boy' half a win if they lose in EI. Since there are no ties, what's the point of a points system? A win is a win and a loss is a loss. I'm all for the shootout! It brings a few moments of excitement to some otherwise boring games at times. Like scoreless ties. Leave those for boring soccer. I do however think OT should be longer. Five minutes four on four, five minutes three on three, sudden death. If no winner the go to the shootout. That sounds good.
Well I like some of what you've mentioned but not others.
Most of I have mentioned above.
I was all for your ideas till you brought the SO back into it.
As for thinking a game is boring if you don't have 6-8 goals per game, I know you didn't say that, but it's what your leading to.
I was at a game that the Red Wings and Flyers were playing back in the day, ended up being a 1-0 game, that was one of the BEST GAMES I've ever seen.
No, I’m not saying let’s have a dozen goals every night. I don’t want to walk away after spending almost three hours of my time, or after spending a lot of my money after attending a game only to have it end in a tie. Of my favorite games of all time was a Rangers/Sabres game that ended in a 2-1 OT victory for the Sabres that went scoreless for the first two and a half periods. There doesn’t have to be a lot of scoring, just a lot of scoring opportunities and a clear cut winner at the end of each game.
I would say do it like the playoffs, full 20 min periods until someone scores. I’m not a fan of having post season rules be different than regular season rules, since it was those regular season rules that got you in the playoffs, but after an extra full OT or 2 in playoff games, the play gets sloppy. Players are so fatigued, the quality of the game starts to diminish and the winner a lot of the time ends up to be the team that didn’t make the first careless mistake, not the team who made a spectacular play.
While like I said I don’t necessarily care for having different sets of rules, I don’t really see an issue with the shootout. I can’t stand soccer, but like the rest of America I mildly care about it once every four years during the World Cup, don’t they use a shootout to decide winners in the World Cup after being tied forever?
I would say do it like the playoffs, full 20 min periods until someone scores. I’m not a fan of having post season rules be different than regular season rules, since it was those regular season rules that got you in the playoffs, but after an extra full OT or 2 in playoff games, the play gets sloppy. Players are so fatigued, the quality of the game starts to diminish and the winner a lot of the time ends up to be the team that didn’t make the first careless mistake, not the team who made a spectacular play.
While like I said I don’t necessarily care for having different sets of rules, I don’t really see an issue with the shootout. I can’t stand soccer, but like the rest of America I mildly care about it once every four years during the World Cup, don’t they use a shootout to decide winners in the World Cup after being tied forever?
