There are still college coaches who go for the win late in the game.
Trivia : the very first college OT game ever had NC State go for a 2 point play in the first OT. As you might expect it caught the other team (Syracuse) completely by surprise and NC State won.
Hey. Go get your own thread. College football? What the hell is next: highschool tiddywinks?
You’re right, my apologies. I still think it’s blatantly unfair that games that are tied in regulation are worth 50% more than those with a winner in regulation. Maybe just scrap the OT in the regular season altogether.
Not if each game is 3 points. Win in regulation or overtime = 3 point victory. Win in shootout = 2 point victory. That way you still preserve the desire to win in overtime (and remove the desire to just ‘wait till overtime’ at the end of regulation like happens now), plus you make all games worth the same amount. It solves a lot of problems, makes it much more fair, and would still not let games end in very unsatisfying ties.
Says the Leaf Fan. One point a night’s as good as you’re getting, eh? 
I kid, I kid. In all seriousness, I don’t mind the shootout, but the fact that the NHL has 20 minute, 5 on 5 overtime periods in the playoffs tells you what they really think: their current system is inadequate for games that actually mean something.
They should make it a 3 point system: Three points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, and 1 for an OT loss. 5 on 5 play until a team wins. Simple, IMO.
Puck Daddy was talking about possible impending rule changes the other day, and the one simple change everybody seemed to like was to make the OT period a long-change period (i.e., like the 2nd). Apparently, if you stick with the 4-on-4 but force a long change, any mistake in your substitutions in OT will result in a legit scoring chance for the opposition.
If nothing else, it’s such a small change that the average fan might not even notice.
I’d change the system all together. Every team plays two games against every other team (none of this 82-game bullshit they play now), once at home and once away. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie. No overtime in the regular season. Playoffs stay as is, but I think it might be better to lessen the number of teams that make it to the top 8 teams overall (no East-West distinction). But then, I’m a soccer fan so maybe I’m biased.
Five on five, you play until someone scores. No points for being a loser. Just like the playoffs.
What, they’d get tired? Poor wittle babies. They’re pro hockey players. Play proper hockey until there’a a winner. One winner, one loser.
No three points for a win, two for an OT win, blah blah blah. That’s unnecessary and potentially hideously unfair. There should be two statistics that determine where a team finishes:
Every game has a winner and a loser. The winner gets one win, and the loser gets nothing. And the winner should be determined by playing proper 5-on-5 hockey until a goal is scored.
Incidentally, I’m as Canadian as maple syrup and I hate ties. Sports should not have ties.
Rysto mentioned this up thread.
What would be more damaging for the game of hockey though? One point for an overtime loser or having teams actually THROWING GAMES in order to save their energy?
I like an epic matchup as much as the next guy, but that would be ridiculous without stretching the season (which this year fell just 11 days short of SUMMER). Indeed, they’re not babies, they’re hockey players. But the human body can only take so much.
For one thing, I think the physical effects of a multiple overtime game are probably a little overstated. Teams regularly do morning skates on and after game days; they can skip those if a little extra rest is needed.
For another, a team in a playoff race is not going to give up a win for anything. Too many seedings are determined by tiny margins.
I agree with **RickJay **and others.
5 on 5, no points for OT loss. Play until somebody wins.
You’re tired? You’re getting slow? Tough. Play or die.
(Just kidding, but you know what I mean.)
Overheard on VS. network during the most recent playoffs, quoting Joe Beninatti: “Hurdle the dead and trample the wounded - it’s playoff hockey”. I like that.
The new NHL (bleh) has changed so many things that it’s hard to determine what works and what doesn’t.
The more I think about this the more I think we move to winning percentage. Only wins count. That way, arbitrary points allotted for ties are eliminated. The teams on the bubble have to make the playoffs through wins only.
The issue then is how to deal with overtime. Here’s a list in my preferred order.
Option 1: Minor hockey rules. To speed up tournament games, younger leagues start OT 5 on 5 and start subtracting players every few minutes. I’ve seen both 2 and 5 minute intervals. It speeds things up fast.
Option 2: Play to completion. As mentioned earlier, extended games could affect teams during back to back games. But I think that would be offset by the fact that there would be no consolation prize. Open the game up, either score or lose, and conserve energy.
Option 3: Go straight to shootout. 5 players. It’s a spectacle for some fans. If they like it, Drop the cock tease act that is the 5 minute OT.