2010-2011 NHL season

Three points for a win in regulation.

Two points for an OT or shootout win. One point for an OT or SO loss

I like Ken Holland's suggestion: increase OT to 8 minutes with the first four minutes 4 on 4 and the second half 3 on 3. Then have a shootout. I suspect that would reduce dramatically the number of shootout games.

 

Intelligent answer. A picture of a bear with no rhyme or reason or anything to contribute to the discussion.

The whole point is to eliminate shootouts, not reduce them. Shootouts do not determine who deserves to win the game. They are just blind luck like flipping a coin. ESPN magazine had a very interesting piece last week about shootout statistics and how the results are completely random. Each season, every team has roughly 1/8th of their games (a significant number) decided by basically drawing a name out of a hat. I'm looking for an alternative to them, not a way to cut down on them.

 

Sorry, but your proposal doesn't deserve an intelligent response. It's even sillier than the shootouts

 

How so? Because it's more reflective of who the better team is? There is nothing sillier than a shootout. Would you like to see a basketball game decided by a free throw contest? A baseball game decided by a homerun derby? A golf tournament decided by a putting contest?

I guess my proposal for a debate among mature adults was silly. But a picture of a bear was not. Good grief.

 

The only thing reflective of who the better team is, is 5 on 5 hockey.

Power plays are exciting? No thanks. You want exciting, simply play 4 on 4 for ten minutes. If that doesn't settle it what the hell is wrong with a tie. Your idea is a worse gimmick than the shootout.

 

Power plays are not exciting? Are you being serious??

In football, baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, bowling --- basically any other sport --- a tie is decided by continuing normal play until someone wins by either sudden death or within a set time frame. This is the only pure way to determine a fair winner and the same goes for hockey. But the problem with hockey (and soccer) is that you can play for so long without a goal that the logistics of endless overtimes for an 82 game season is just too much.

So something else must be done, and thus the shootout. I would have no problem with 20 minutes of 4-on-4. Winner gets two points, loser gets nothing and a tie would merit a point apiece. I think there would be very few ties with 20 minutes of 4-on-4. Just too many scoring chances generated by 4-on-4 play for very many games to end in ties.

The only problem with a shootout is that it's an isolated skill that determines the winner -- kind of like a free throw contest settling a basketball tie. My original idea was to keep the game itself intact (team play and not just individual play) for the tiebreaker. A tiebreaker format should reflect how the normal game is played and not just isolate one skill. My original idea of continous power plays is not entirely reflective of a normal hockey game, but how many power plays are there in a typical game? Several. And how many clear breakaways with no backchecker where the player has all the time in the world to shoot? Maybe once a game at most. Therefore, a shootout is not very reflective of how the sport is played. Continuous power plays is at least a little more reflective of the game.

And do you really think power plays are not exciting? No disrespect, but that one stumps me.

 

D. Sutter has resigned.

 

Sorry Golfnut, I think back and forth action is exciting, power plays can be but nothing beats he actual trading of chances.

Who gives a shit what other sports do, there were ties in hockey for years, there is nothing wrong with them. Honestly I don't take any disrespect from you post, after reading your initial overtime proposal it's hard to take anything you say about the game to seriously

 

If there's nothing wrong with ties than why did the NHL adopt the shootout?? Because games were ending in ties all too often. All too often, fans were being sent home with a tie. Whoopee. A tie.

If you thought my overtime idea was lame, that's fine. I posted it for feedback so feedback is welcome. But what I don't understand is simply posting an idiotic picture of a bear in response and then going on personal attacks. If the topic of conversation does not interest you, simply don't participate. If it does interest you, contribute something more substantial than a picture of a bear followed by snide remarks. Welcome to an adult conversation.

This site really amazes me sometimes in that you can post something completely harmless (such as a new overtime idea) that is meant only to get a ball rolling on a casual conversation but then have people spew out insults and cheap shots when they don't agree with it. Is this how you act in real life or just behind the safety of internet obscurity?

 

I didn't post the bear picture.

And yes, I would say these things in real life. After 65 minutes if both teams end up tied, so be it