Ongoing NHL thread - Part deux

[dare2be]

Now would be a good time to re-introduce my sudden death OT.

Home team picks whether to go first. One team plays with an empty net 5 on 4. Once a goal is scored, then switch off to the other team playing 5 on 4 with an empty net. Whichever team scores in less time (or scores both goals) wins. No ties, no loser points.

I'm half serious.

 

[mattola]

i for one am actually excited for 3 on 3.

 

[pixburgher66]

Now would be a good time to re-introduce my sudden death OT.

Home team picks whether to go first. One team plays with an empty net 5 on 4. Once a goal is scored, then switch off to the other team playing 5 on 4 with an empty net. Whichever team scores in less time (or scores both goals) wins. Not ties, no loser points.

I'm half serious.

Yes, but...how will this affect the win in the bank?

 

[pixburgher66]

i for one am actually excited for 3 on 3.

Samesies. In the rare moments where I've seen it (coincidental minors in OT), it's been just great. You want to talk entertaining? 3 on 3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>shootout. I think it happened in the Pens-Sharks game recently (or one of those games out West) and watching Letang have freedom to roam was something else. It was quality scoring chance after scoring chance.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Bruce Boudreau and Ken Hitchcock have to run from one end of the ice to the other with their shoes on - that would be fun!

You're cruel hahaha

 

[blindbaby]

No 3 on 3 either. This is becoming a joke. We're talking about a game people pay hundreds to watch and players are paid millions to play and we're turning it into a make-up-the-rules-as-you-go playground game. Next lets use a round ball instead of a puck if it's still tied after 5 minutes of 3 on 3 and then have the coaches duel each other using Arizona Territory rules and if still we don't have a winner have a zamboni race.

Is this a good time to mention the sport is having a World Cup with a "rest of world" team and they're actively pursuing locating a franchise in Las Vegas where there is as much interest in hockey as there is in Mathletes?

Nah, decide it on corner kicks.

 

[mattola]

does no one liked when the AHL had thicker bluelines? I liked that the players had a few more inches to handle the puck on the Power Play. I guess it never stuck in the AHL

they dont have to be this thick but a little more would do wonders for flow.

 

[DevilishWon]

Bruce Boudreau and Ken Hitchcock have to run from one end of the ice to the other with their shoes on - that would be fun!

As long as the EMT with the crash cart is on the ice with them....OK!

 

[DevilishWon]

does no one liked when the AHL had thicker bluelines? I liked that the players had a few more inches to handle the puck on the Power Play. I guess it never stuck in the AHL

they dont have to be this thick but a little more would do wonders for flow.

Makes it too hard to see the glowing FoxSports puck

 

[Comeds]

As long as the EMT with the crash cart is on the ice with them....OK!

Ken is up for it!

 

[forty_three]

does no one liked when the AHL had thicker bluelines? I liked that the players had a few more inches to handle the puck on the Power Play. I guess it never stuck in the AHL

they dont have to be this thick but a little more would do wonders for flow.

Make Offsides at the red line on penalty kills... You have to clear past the red line.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Just because you think it's the proper way doesn't mean winning in the shootout isn't proper - a win is a win - if the league wants to change the rules, they can, until then, the teams can win whichever darn way they choose

The rules are the rules and if you're Boston, maybe you should have played better in the first half of the season - they deserve to be fighting tooth and nail for a final spot because they sucked in the first half of the season and they had a horrendous road trip in February until they finally removed their heads from their ass

So yes, let's punish the Panthers just because they don't win games the "old-fashioned way" - points are points and if they were tied with Boston, then that means that at the end of the day, regardless of what you think the rules should be, they would be equal with Boston - if you think it's a travesty that Boston would have to play an extra game to get in, then it would be a travesty for the Panthers to not get an opportunity after how hard they worked to get to that point - you can't punish teams just because you don't think the rules are the way you want them to be

Besides, the Panthers only have five less wins than Boston and at the end of the day, wins are wins - it's time to stop painting teams like the Panthers as a mickey mouse team and acting like they aren't competitive enough to deserve a shot if they were tied - if you're going to use the argument that the Panthers don't win the "old-fashioned way", then you can't say that Boston is THAT much better because the Panthers only have one less regulation loss than Boston, so it tells me that the Panthers are just as competitive of a team and that a lot of games in the league come down to OT/SO, it's not just the Panthers

Your bias on this topic is obvious. Florida deserves another game to play their way in because of how hard they worked but Boston should be forced to play another game because they weren't good enough in the first half of the year?

Why not punish the Panthers for not being able to beat teams without having to rely on a skills competition?

And not all wins are equal, per the league's own rules. Points are points, but wins are weighted differently in tie-breaking procedures. That's why they use ROW as the first tie-breaker after a full season (i.e., all teams have played the same number of games). The first one! It's more important than head-to-head even because it's the best reflection of how good a TEAM is at playing an actual hockey game. Not how good 3-4 shooters (the league average is about 3.75 shooters per team per shootout) and a single goalie are in a breakaway competition.

 

[Mandoli]

i for one am actually excited for 3 on 3.

This is something I can get behind. Saw a little bit of it in the AHL over the weekend (didn't last long; OT ended kind of quickly after that), and I was pretty impressed. Hell, the entire game was crazy, but as soon as it went to the 3-on-3 format, it was like heaven opened up. That was literally the best thing I've ever seen.

If it means less of the shootout, then I'd be a happy camper.

 

[alf41]

let the captains fight at center ice, winner gets the extra point lol

 

[mattola]

let the captains fight at center ice, winner gets the extra point lol

made me think of the XFL when I read that lol. they tried to be so innovative in how they approached the game. didnt someone tear their shoulder out trying to win the race to get the first ball. ended their career I thought

 

[BGDave]

screw it. make wins 2 pts and ties and losses NO points. and ties only go into consideration for some form of tie breaker for a 8th/9th place team. Im kidding... but not well maybe

can you imagine. you go into OT KNOWING that if you both tie both gets nothing for points with your season on the line. how hard those teams would go for a win

I really like this idea. I think it is insane that participating in a game that goes to overtime is more valuable (3 points awarded to teams) versus winning a game in regulation (2 points awarded).

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

The 3 vs. 3 idea does intrigue me a bit, but I wonder whether it's a long term solution.

When 4 vs. 4 first started, it seems to me that there were fewer games that ended in ties (keeping in mind that there were about 6 or 7 seasons with 4 vs. 4 OT before the shootout was introduced) because it was a situation which teams were less familiar with. But with it becoming a bigger part of the game, teams started practicing more, and it seemed like more games were ending in ties again as the years went on, resulting in the introduction of the shootout.

So what's to say we won't see the same thing happen with 3 vs. 3?

 

[Mandoli]

So what's to say we won't see the same thing happen with 3 vs. 3?

AHL has already gone on the record to state that the OT rule in place for them has cut down on the number of times the shootout has occurred. I wouldn't be surprised to see this format cut down on the number of shootouts in the NHL next year.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Apparently the GMs proposed getting rid of the automatic delay of game penalty for putting the puck over the glass and a limited coaches-challenge style review for goals with potential goaltender interference.

Still has to go to the competition committee, but it's a start.

 

[mattola]

AHL has already gone on the record to state that the OT rule in place for them has cut down on the number of times the shootout has occurred. I wouldn't be surprised to see this format cut down on the number of shootouts in the NHL next year.

shootouts dont have to dissapear entirely. I just want to make sure they make it as difficult as possible to limit them if they intend to keep them. 3 on 3 is such a great start. I imagine it goes to 4 on 3 for a PP though