I hate the current NHL overtime system. The current 4 on 4 five minute period is stupid and the shootout is even worse. 4 on 4 hockey after playing 60 minutes of regular hockey? You don’t add a DH to a National League baseball game that goes into extra innings.
The shootout is even worse. Why not have a speed skating contest?
I like a ten minute sudden death full strength overtime period. After that, it ends in a tie. I’d rather have a tie and watch 70 minutes of real hockey than sit through a shootout.
Used to be 5 minutes full strength overtime with no shootout, and it sucked because the teams would play for the tie instead of trying to win.
However, I like your idea with the addition that teams get no points for ties. 2 points for all wins, 0 points for all ties and losses. That’ll make’em play.
Basically, I’d take everything that the IIHF does to resolve ties, and do the exact opposite.
At the very least, shootouts should have 5 skaters, not 3. But I’d prefer to scrap them entirely.
I also hate 4-on-4 overtime, but I put up with it in the NHL because it really doesn’t make much of a difference in the regular season. I’ve heard that there’s actually more goals scored per minute of 5-on-5 than 4-on-4, which I can totally believe. It seems to me that 4-on-4 really hurts the cycle and teams that jump defencemen into the rush give up more goals than they score.
One suggestion that saw for soccer was to hold the shootout before overtime. The team that wins the shootout gets a half-goal lead; if the overtime period is scoreless, that team wins.
Playoff overtime, on the other hand, is absolutely perfect as it is. Don’t change a damned thing, no matter how the broadcasters whine.
It’d be way too tough on the players. Can you imagine a team playing in the first game of a 3 in 4 nights stretch, and going to multiple overtimes? It’d kill them.
Half-way through the first OT period a team would be better off to intentionally lose and save their legs than try for the 2 points.
Yeah, it wouldn’t work in the regular season because there are too many back to back games scheduled. Due to travel, LA/Anaheim and Calgary/Edmonton are often scheduled as Friday/Saturday or Saturday/Sunday games for a lot of teams.
I agree with this mostly, except I’d give a point for getting to the shootout. I think a point for losing in overtime is stupid. Also, I support going to a three point system. That is, each game is three points: A win is 3, loss is 0, in a shootout, winner gets 2, loser gets 1. This way all games are worth the same, rather than now where an overtime game has more total points than not.
This also gives extra incentive to try and score in overtime or at the end of the game, so people won’t just play for the shootout.
As much as the shootout is not regular hockey, I think it’s much more satisfying than the bazillion ties we had before it was implemented. Ugh…I hate ties. True, I enjoy playoff overtime more than anything, but you just can’t do that in the regular season.
The reason for the point for a loss in OT is to make teams take more risks on offense which might give up a goal. For example the D men might pinch in.
In the past you had people take less risks in OT since they knew a tie was a point. The problem now is I think teams take less risks late in period 3 since they know getting to OT is a point.
I dislike any system where some games are worth 3 points and others worth 2. The old system was plenty good enough:
Play 10 minutes by same rules as rest of the game. If still tied, take you point apiece and go home. Otherwise, winners get 2 points, losers (regulation or OT) get zilch.
I think this bolded statement is bang-on. We Canadians are more than happy to see a 60 minute game end in a tie. But with the Bettmanisation of the league, we are now stuck with a hodge-podge of ever-changing overtime rules that no one seems to like.
I’d much prefer going back to 60 minutes of hockey for regular season. And, of course, leaving the playoffs exactly as-is.
College FB got rid of ties back in 97 and I don’t think any fan misses them. The college FB OT format is not like a normal game but I don’t hear anyone complain about it.
Then you might as well not waste everybody’s time and eliminate overtime and go straight from the end of the third period to the shootout. Teams always will play for guaranteed point in overtime.
Anybody know how many more games had a winner in OT once they guaranteed a point to the loser? I’ve never seen stats on that. My guess is the NHL compiled those numbers.
I miss them and I’m not crazy about the OT format, either. One of my first college games that I went to was Ohio State at Michigan State in 1974. Time running out, Buckeyes down by 3 and inside the 1 yard line. Do they go for the tie or the win? They went for the win and were stopped, then couldn’t get off another play in time. Nowadays they would have kicked the FG and settled for OT. I think the OT takes some of the strategy out of the late game for the sake of avoiding an outcome that was part of the game for decades. Similar case for the Michigan State- Notre Dame game of the century, giving us the old line “Duffy and Ara went to the tailor. Duffy went for a suit, Ara went for a tie.” Great stuff of legend to argue about for decades. OT has robbed us of these kinds of controversies and second-guessing.