Lots of controversy this year over the shootout deciding games. From the 3 on 3 experiment in the AHL to speculation of teams playing for the shootout/OT in close games, given the point structure. Back in the day, you played until someone scored. Hard on players maybe, but great for fans. So do like the shootout? Or not? What would you change?  Any thoughts? 

Lots of controversy this year over the shootout deciding games. From the 3 on 3 experiment in the AHL to speculation of teams playing for the shootout/OT in close games, given the point structure. Back in the day, you played until someone scored. Hard on players maybe, but great for fans. So do like the shootout? Or not? What would you change?  Any thoughts? 

 

I do not like the shootout myself, I think it benefits the more talented teams. Same as for the overtime.

 

Back in my day...a regular season game ended in a tie. That was it.

 

Lots of controversy this year over the shootout deciding games. From the 3 on 3 experiment in the AHL to speculation of teams playing for the shootout/OT in close games, given the point structure. Back in the day, you played until someone scored. Hard on players maybe, but great for fans. So do like the shootout? Or not? What would you change?  Any thoughts? 

 

I do not like the shootout myself, I think it benefits the more talented teams. Same as for the overtime.

 

Back in my day...a regular season game ended in a tie. That was it.

 

Yeah, I remember, a point each, yes? Seems like a reason to play for a tie in a close game. I like what used to be called sudden death overtime, I guess the problem with that is, games can go on for hours. As I fan I liked it, but I'm sure owners and players would hate it, and there's probably something in the CBA addressing that. OT as played in the SC playoffs probably wouldn't fly in regular season games, too hard on players. Apparently they're looking at going to a 2nd overtime with 3 on 3 like they're doing in the SPHL, not sure I like that either, but it might be exciting to watch. Anyway, I hope they address it, Not sure I like getting a point for a loss, despite how it's helping the Jets. The shootout seems to favour the teams with super-stars (ie: Pittsburgh game) and maybe not so much the harder wotking team. I don't have  an answer, but rule/format changes might be interesting this off-season.

I don't like the idea of three points.

Two points for a win. One point for a tie. If teams play for a tie in OT so be it.

I'd be fine with keeping 4 on 4 and extending OT to ten minutes.

I don't mind ties. Who  bitched about it so it got changed?

Whatever i guess. Don't really like it as i was a former goalie myself and really didn't like shoot-outs at all, thought it was pretty unfair to be honest, it's a skills competition, i mean why not just have the hardest shot competition or see what guy can hit the 4 targets in the net the quickest. I dunno, think the reasoning  behind it is so it keeps playoff races tighter, i do believe that is the reasoning, winner gets 2, loser gets 1.. Instead of 1 and 1 each.. Something about that tho is the reason for it... 

 

Also probably has a lot to do with tv deals and things, i think a continuous OT is great in the playoffs but i'm not sure about it in the regular season. What i would have liked them to do instead of going to the shoot-out after 5, is play an extra 5 or make it 10 minute ot or go 3-3 instead of 4-4. If tied after the 3-3 10 minute period, ok then go to the shoot-out. I'm just happy the shoot-out is only for the regular season cuz i couldn't imagine losing say the stanley cup finals in a skills competition. 

Cant do sudden death til the finish during regular season nor should they.  Should just go back to the way it was. Im not sure if they could keep 4 on 4 without splitting the point automatically.  I dont think there was a lot of people upset about tie games.  Something they did to appeal to Americans who dont like hockey, trying to make it more exciting.  Its goofy.  3 on 3 is even goofier.  Whats next, 1 on 1?

then go to a 4-4 10 minute OT and take away the loser point. So teams actually try to win it IN OT instead of playing for the shoot-out which lots of teams pretty obviously do. If it's tied after the 10 minutes, each team gets 1 point and you call it a day. 

I wouldn't object to them going back to the "old ways" of 60 minutes of hockey and that's it.

Ties are ties.

Shootouts, to me, are not a measure of a team win or loss.

I like 10 minutes also.  Problem is you start impacting network schedules.  They *have* to do a scrape after the 3rd period if they are going to play 10 minutes.

 

If the idea is that giving each team 1 point after regulation and an extra point to the victor makes them play for the win, then why doesnt going back to 0 points for a loss, 2 for a win and 1 for a tie?  Either way, teams might try to play for a tie.  It doesnt incentivise a team into playing harder for 2 points when the opposition gets 1 point for losing versus getting 0 points for losing.'

 

Go back to the old ways

Yeah It's all about TV for sure, The shoot-out itself was probably intended to draw higher ratings, "it's exciting" and all that stuff.. I'd love to see the Tv Numbers of a game through 60 minutes and then see it for the shoot-out if it makes it that far, I wonder if it actually makes a difference ratings wise. 

I don't mind ties. Who  bitched about it so it got changed?

Probably the Sabres so they could score that 1st overall pick.