5 years of the shootout - verdict?

[dmiles2186]

I say we have a 6 minute shootout. After that if no winner is determined then we go to sack races on consecutive Sunday's until a clear winner is determined.

PS MD3 sucked, No Coach Bombay.

Very good point, MD3 did suck...except when Paul Kariya was on there. Besides the 10 seconds that he was on there...the movie sucked. Wait what are we talking about again?

Also, the Iceland goalie from the 2nd movie changed his name, lost his accent, and became an Eden Valley varsity team member.

One good thing about MD3 (Spoiler alert): We find out that Charlie was the REAL Minnesota Miracle Man, per the great Coach Bombay.

And yes, shootouts still suck. I've always been up for extending OT to 10 minutes, then going to a shootout. That or making it 5 shooters instead of 3.

[glen a richter]

There's a time for a game that's all about individual efforts being for the benefit of the entire team (baseball) and there's a time for a game being a complete team effort from beginning to end (hockey). If you so desperately want to keep ties off the scoresheet, then have different kinds of tie breakers. Most shots, most periods won, whatever. But not an individual skills event. How about 5 on 5 OT sans the goalies. Most goals wins.

[ohio BLUES]

My point in bumping this thread was not to talk about the shootouts, but the three point system. Here's LeBrun's article, now that it's live again:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/1 ... -standings

As you can see, before play yesterday, the Blues led the Western Conference under the three-point system.

Can someone articulate a cogent argument against the three-point system?

[glen a richter]

Here's an argument against the 3 point system:

It implies that the shootout stays. (Frank) that shit, honestly. I'm tired of the damn shootout. What if it was a straight two point system and every gave, win lose or draw was worth ONLY two points, loser gets nothing. Then how do the standings look?

[ohio BLUES]

Here's an argument against the 3 point system:

It implies that the shootout stays. (Frank) that shit, honestly. I'm tired of the damn shootout. What if it was a straight two point system and every gave, win lose or draw was worth ONLY two points, loser gets nothing. Then how do the standings look?

I agree with you, but the shootout isn't going anywhere, unfortunately.

So, you make every game three points, and you have extra incentive 1) not to take the game to the shootout and 2) to penalize the teams that rely on shootouts for wins.

[theohall]

If they want to promote a higher paced game to encourage people to keep going to games and they insist on screwing with tradition, then I propose this for the OT:

5 minutes 3 on 3, all rules pertaining to two line passes, offsides and icing are suspended, fire at will. Most goals in 5 minutes wins, in the case of a tie, tie breaker becomes most shots, in case of it still being a tie, 2nd tie breaker is (Frank) it and call it a damn tie. If this sounds ridiculous but you still think that having it be an exhibition of individual skills in a 1 on 1 all-star style competition is the greatest thing ever then I don't even know what to tell you.

Most importantly, every game is worth 2 points no matter the outcome.

The problem with 3-on-3.... every time it has happened in OT this season, both coaches put out one forward and two defensemen to prevent the loss. Not one single coach during 3-on-3 in OT has used the two forward, one D approach which equates to actually trying to win the game, vice guaranteeing one point and reaching the shootout.

[theohall]

My point in bumping this thread was not to talk about the shootouts, but the three point system. Here's LeBrun's article, now that it's live again:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/1 ... -standings

As you can see, before play yesterday, the Blues led the Western Conference under the three-point system.

Can someone articulate a cogent argument against the three-point system?

While a 3-2-1 system would benefit this current Blues team, it would detract from the history of game, IMO, just as the SO has completely ruined the concept of earning 20 consecutive wins at home. The Red Wings "streak" actually ended at 12 games (which was the 4th longest streak in the 70s - Bruins for that one) when the 13th win went to a shootout - something that did not exist in the 70s. Heck, OT did not exist when the Bruins and Flyers had the consecutive home winning streaks the Red Wings supposedly surpassed.

Leave it at 2 points for a win. Extend 4-on-4 OT to 10 minutes. Add a 5 minute 3-on-3 in which 2 of the 3 skaters must be forwards. If you lose in a shootout after that - ZERO points. Only the winner gets points. That eliminates the idiocy of this currently modified 3-point system when it is clear the owners/gms don't want anything do to with 3 point systems. Eliminate any point for a loss and suddenly teams will be trying lots harder to win games. Yes, this can create the issue mentioned within the article about teams pulling a goalie lots earlier to get the extra points and losing because of pulling the goalie. Guess what? Maybe that team that had to pull the goalie earlier should actually have been a better team from the time the puck was dropped, instead of being down late in a game and needing the 6th skater just to tie the game.

And... shootout wins, as currently, don't count when it comes to tiebreakers. Most Regulation/OT wins continues to be the primary tiebreaker for playoffs. Also, shootout wins don't count for streaks - either - eliminating this supposedly glorious consecutive home winning streak by the Red Wings which isn't even close to what the teams before accomplished.