Monday debate: the shootout

I too like a 3 point system. No game should be worth more points than another game. Imagine this scenario to finish the season:

 7th seed: Sabres 90pts

8th seed: Flyers 89pts

9th seed: Canes 89pts (Canes do not hold tie-breakers with either team)

All teams have one game left. Canes destroy Panthers 6-0 (why couldn't we do that last year????) on Saturday and now sit in 7th with 91pts. Flyers and Sabres play each other on Sunday. Flyers beat the Sabres in a shootout.

Now all 3 are tied with 91pts but because of tie-breakers, the Canes are out of a playoff spot. Flyers get in because they won a skills competition, not a hockey game and to top it all off Sabres LOSE the skills competition and knock the Canes out as well.

In a 3 point system, the Canes regulation domination of a hockey gives them a 3 point advantage over Flyers and the Flyers have to match it or else they miss the playoffs. The Sabres can't catch the canes with loss now either.

For OT, I would propose the 4 min of 4 on 4 followed by 3 min of 3 on 3. Both of these formats are still hockey and winner should get all 3 points - loser gets 0. Then have a shootout where winner gets 2 points and loser gets 1. Fans get a winner, the point system makes a lot more sense and rewards team more for winning hockey games instead of a skills competition.

Win in Regulation or OT. There, that simple.

..then why during the season? How about 5 minutes 4v4 like they already use.

If no score...5 minutes 5v5 with NO GOALIES! repeat with 4v4, 3v3..5 minutes each with no goalies..I do not think it would ever go to a shootout..just give them a tie if they don't score.

that will have the fans standing up...

I preferred simply having ties to any kind of overtime. Then I preferred ties after 5 minutes of 4-on-4. But if we absolutely must have a winner and a loser, I agree that we should minimize the number of shootouts.
Play four minutes of 4-on-4, then play three minutes of 3-on-3, then go to the shootout if necessary. We'll see fewer shootouts, and the TV people will still have a predictable duration for the game (which is why they don't want games to play on indefinitely).

The shootout is a gimmick that's not really caught on as much as Gary B. hoped. The fact that it's still being debated is proof enough. Why not simply extend overtime to ten minutes instead of five? Four on four hockey for ten minutes will almost surely result in a goal. And it's still hockey. Last year's playoff games that went into overtime averaged a goal within 6:45 (not counting the Dallas marathon) - and that was five on five. Keep it simple. Go to ten minutes - if still tied, it's a tie... but I bet 90% of the time there'll be a winner.

You have to make the 60 minutes preceding matter. In OT, the 60 minutes that came before effect the momentum of the game. IF you were playing catchup the last 10 or 15 minutes of the third your players are going to be more winded and prone to make a mistake. Or maybe they are going to be more amped and play harder than an opposition that is now reeling.

The shoot out basically renders everything that came before it moot and says Let's start from scratch and do something completely different. it just feels like what it is, manufactured drama. Like shoot em up flick that ends with the main bad guy and main good guy deciding who wins with game of rock paper scissors

If the league does not want ties, then they have to figure out a way to end the game, while still building upon the events that led up to the conclusion.

2 points for a win. Tied games goes to 5 min 4on4. If still tied, 5 min 3 on 3. Still tied, no points awarded. ;)

Or in OT give each team 2 minutes power plays, three rounds. Most PP goals scored wins 2 points. Loser gets nothing.

Either way, we get a point. Funny no one remembers that back in the "old mo" days, we always played for a point (a tie).

So, pick your excitement...the last few minutes of the 3rd played trying to make sure the other team didn't score a goal when the game was tied. Then, 5 min of OT trying to make sure the other team didn't score a goal...we get a point.

or, a shootout, where you get a winner and a loser but you get a point.

Personally, I'd just rather see them play full out for a win but I don't think that's possible with this team and definitely not with this coach.

I think the games should be decided by game play, but what I suggest is, after the regular overtime, have 5 minute 3 on 3 decided by total goals scored, not on a golden goal format. The stats should be kept separate from normal stats. I think it would be more interesting for the fans an is more like real hockey than the current one on one. Just my two cents.

Shootouts...but in the case of the Canes...they need to be riminded that if they had played better and harder ..they would be no need for them to go to a shoot out...sigh...but seeing i can't skate ( any longer) I can't lead by example...so my family keeps me locked up in my cage...and lets me rant and have my first amendment rights to free speech which like 99.9999% of the world ignores anyway...

I am glad the NHL has this set up, but still if anyteam could or wouldn't get themselves into a situation...there would be no real need would there ??

have a great day Everyone...and yes you too Chip !!!

Go canes !!

The current setup is great for the fans in the regular season, and keep the playoffs "iron-man" sudden death overtime. Another option I kind of like is the spiral overtime. After a regulation tie you play: 4 minutes 4 on 4 3 minutes of 3 on 3 maybe 2 minutes of 2 on 2... not sure about that one... the a shootout. They discussed this during the lockout, but decided the 5 minute 4on4 then shootout as best. ------------------------------------------------------

I am Johnnyg and I approved this message.