Overtime should be 3 on 3

[pumpkinhead33793]

That would be so much fun.

 

[IPostedWhat]

I'm still waiting for giant, obese goalies.

 

[esls79]

I like 2 on 1 better

 

[dash]

I like 2 on 1 better

Bow chicka waa waa...

 

[Cobiemonster]

I know NHL has talked about 4 on 4 for 5 minutes and then 3 on 3 for 5 minutes but I think they should go straight to 3 on 3 for OT and scrap the extra possible five minutes - you'll get more games ending in OT if you go straight to 3 on 3, and if even if it doesn't end, you'll still get a few shootouts here and there, and I think me personally, I've learned/grown to enjoy it - it's something that will still be fun to watch - I just don't want them to go back to ties

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

Why wait till overtime? Why not just have regulation be 3 on 3 as well? Heck, wouldn't mind just scrapping the hockey game and go straight to the shootout.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

I like 2 on 1 better

Now you're talking

 

[elocomotive]

I've long been an advocate of taking one more player off every 5 minutes. You go to 4-on-4 to start overtime. Then 3-on-3 after 5 minutes. Then 2-on-2 after 5 minutes. Then 1-on-1 if it somehow makes it to that - would imagine this would be rare.

 

[forty_three]

I've always been a believer in the "Suck it up, buttercup. You play hockey until someone wins at hockey." No loser points, no gimmicks. You play until the game is decided. And the first OT is NOT sudden death.

5 on 5 until the legs don't go anymore. Sorry some candy asses are going to be upset that they will miss their flights. Waaah.

 

[ritari330]

Eh, I don't know how i feel about 3 on 3. The few times i have seen 3 on 3 in overtime both teams have looked very content with waiting for a shootout. 5 on 5 continuous OT would be my preference

 

[Slimpikins]

Meh, I like the victory in the back playoff idea better.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Remember, if you're going to extend the game from 65 minutes maximum to at least 70 minutes, players aren't going to like that, unless they get more $ out of it - NHL won't be able to just make that change without uproar from the players

 

[thedddd]

Eh, I don't know how i feel about 3 on 3. The few times i have seen 3 on 3 in overtime both teams have looked very content with waiting for a shootout. 5 on 5 continuous OT would be my preference

This.....

But in a sad sort of way I miss the tie's and horrible records when teams had more ties than wins.

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

NO!!

 

[elocomotive]

I have a concern though - would 3v3 wins still count towards the "victory in the bank" that can be used in the playoffs?

 

[dash]

I still think a 3-2-1-0 points system would reduce the number of games that go to overtime. That said, the owners love the parity the current points system provides and will never adopt it.

 

[elocomotive]

I still think a 3-2-1-0 points system would reduce the number of games that go to overtime. That said, the owners love the parity the current points system provides and will never adopt it.

In the new system, you'll have a record that is based on wins-losses-4playerOTwins-4playerOTlosses-3playerOTwins-3playerOTlosses-2playerOTwins-2playerOTlosses-other (result not specfied).

So your team could finish the season 42-20-7-4-2-3-1-2-1.

Simple, really.

 

[dash]

In the new system, you'll have a record that is based on wins-losses-4playerOTwins-4playerOTlosses-3playerOTwins-3playerOTlosses-2playerOTwins-2playerOTlosses-other (result not specfied).

So your team could finish the season 42-20-7-4-2-3-1-2-1.

Simple, really.

Leave it to a lawyer to add a bunch of legal-ease into the equation.

 

[Cobiemonster]

In the new system, you'll have a record that is based on wins-losses-4playerOTwins-4playerOTlosses-3playerOTwins-3playerOTlosses-2playerOTwins-2playerOTlosses-other (result not specfied).

So your team could finish the season 42-20-7-4-2-3-1-2-1.

Simple, really.

Oh god that's too much

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

I still think a 3-2-1-0 points system would reduce the number of games that go to overtime. That said, the owners love the parity the current points system provides and will never adopt it.

That's just ironic how these so called capitalists want parity. Guess it's just "socialism" if things don't go their way.