NHL to Adopt 3 on 3 OT

[cprice12]

NHL To Adopt 3-On-3 Overtime Next Season, Pending Board Of Governors Approval
http://nesn.com/2015/06/nhl-to-go-to-3- ... -approval/



Change could be coming to the NHL’s overtime format as soon as next season. Pending approval from the league’s Board of Governors, overtime play will switch from 4-on-4 to 3-on-3 in the regular season, per TSN’s Bob McKenzie. Overtime would remain a five-minute period.
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/613499436245909504 https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/613499811321507840 https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/status/613496824368877568 Among the main reasons to change the overtime format to 3-on-3 instead of 4-on-4 is to decrease the amount of games decided by shootouts. Of the 1,230 regular-season games in 2014-15, 13.82 percent went to a shootout — the fourth-highest rate of the nine 82-game seasons since the 2004-05 lockout. The Bruins and Tampa Bay Lightning played a little 3-on-3 overtime in March because of penalties, and the action was fast-paced, exciting and full of scoring chances. “I thought there was lots of room, and if we would have kept — we went back to the 4-on-3 — but if we would have stayed like that, something can happen because there’s so much room and there’s lots of skills on the ice,” Bruins forward Patrice Bergeron said after the 3-2 shootout win. “Yeah, I’d be for it.” Brad Marchand, Bergeron’s linemate, called the 3-on-3 “a good experience.”

[APOD]

Love it, less shootouts the better!

[dmiles2186]

I want less shootouts, but I hate this idea so, so much.

[APOD]

I would rather seen them extend overtime to 10 min, but Im ok with 3 on 3. Its going to drive coaches crazy trying to figure out who to use or roll between 2 forwards and 1 D in the offensive zone then try to quickly change to 1 forward and 2 D as the play moves the other way. I think it will fun to watch it opens up the ice lets the play get faster and more creative.

[dmiles2186]

I would rather seen them extend overtime to 10 min

This has always been my top choice. What is 5 extra mins? 3 on 3 is such a dumb gimmick.

[Kerfuffle]

I would rather seen them extend overtime to 10 min

This has always been my top choice. What is 5 extra mins? 3 on 3 is such a dumb gimmick.

You really don't want to add more time- it just means more chance for injuries and also more tired legs. I'm okay keeping it to 5 min and giving the 3-on-3 a try. It will be interesting if a team gets 2 penalties and it's a 3-on-1.

[cprice12]

I would rather seen them extend overtime to 10 min

This has always been my top choice. What is 5 extra mins? 3 on 3 is such a dumb gimmick.

You really don't want to add more time- it just means more chance for injuries and also more tired legs. I'm okay keeping it to 5 min and giving the 3-on-3 a try. It will be interesting if a team gets 2 penalties and it's a 3-on-1.

Nope.
If there is a penalty, it goes to 4 on 3...then when the penalty is over, it will be 4 on 4 until the next whistle, then back to 3 on 3.

3 on 3 is going to lead to tired legs as well...it's just that much more area to cover for those on the ice...probably more wide open hockey and an even faster pace...which could lead to more guys getting tired. I see very little difference in going 4 on 4 for 10 minutes vs. 3 on 3 for 5 minutes when talking about how tired players will be.

I think I am going to hate 3 on 3.
If people think the shootout is a gimmick, then that's exactly what this is going to seem like.
They should extend it to a 10 minute 4 on 4, and I think that was proposed...but the players association shot that down. They said either 3 on 3 or no change.

Extend the 4 on 4 to 10 minutes, then a shootout... and take away the loser point.
That's the best solution.

[dmiles2186]

I would rather seen them extend overtime to 10 min

This has always been my top choice. What is 5 extra mins? 3 on 3 is such a dumb gimmick.

You really don't want to add more time- it just means more chance for injuries and also more tired legs. I'm okay keeping it to 5 min and giving the 3-on-3 a try. It will be interesting if a team gets 2 penalties and it's a 3-on-1.

Nope.
If there is a penalty, it goes to 4 on 3...then when the penalty is over, it will be 4 on 4 until the next whistle, then back to 3 on 3.

3 on 3 is going to lead to tired legs as well...it's just that much more area to cover for those on the ice...probably more wide open hockey and an even faster pace...which could lead to more guys getting tired. I see very little difference in going 4 on 4 for 10 minutes vs. 3 on 3 for 5 minutes when talking about how tired players will be.

I think I am going to hate 3 on 3.
If people think the shootout is a gimmick, then that's exactly what this is going to seem like.
They should extend it to a 10 minute 4 on 4, and I think that was proposed...but the players association shot that down. They said either 3 on 3 or no change.

Extend the 4 on 4 to 10 minutes, then a shootout... and take away the loser point.
That's the best solution.

I'm with Curt. I don't buy the 'more injuries/tired legs' thing. To me, that's almost as if the previous 65 mins don't also pose that threat. And besides, you aren't playing this every night. How many games are going to require a full 70 minutes? 5-10?

[ecbm]

F'in stupid, this.

I know how I'll remember the Bettman area in the NHL: never miss a chance to pimp a marketing gimmick as a solution to a problem.

This is bs. 3-on-3 hockey isn't a thing. I play roller on Sundays-it's a game full of guys who have mainly played/play ice. I've occasionally suggested that we go to 4-on-4 because the surface is small. I've literally been laughed at. Now we're going to see 3-on-3 NHL hockey. And a personally galling thing: the NHL again doesn't miss a chance to take a dump on goalies.

Of course, all these problems but apparently nothing at all problematic about the shootout or the f'in loser point.

But hey, those casual fans in Las Vegas will probably love the speed and hey, who can keep up with all those players on the ice anyway?

I hate you, Bettman. Thanks for nothing.

[ecbm]

The PA would never allow the games to be lengthened if they weren't getting back some carrot-and it would have to be a big one. Even the NFL, whose matching PA is the weakest in all NA pro sports, is having no easy time expanding the schedule. It's a non-starter.

If the shootout must be kept (and nobody has ever explained to me why that is) then how about going to a different points? Or even get rid of points altogether? And certainly get rid of the loser point, the shame of the NHL? A point for losing? WTF is that?

[APOD]

take away the loser point.

I always liked the 3 point system idea.

Win in regulation get 3 points, loser gets nothing
Win in overtime/shootout get 2 points, loser gets 1

[cardsfan04]

This feels like an idea that a fan has that gets discussed, but never really has any actually chance of happening. Except it really is happening.

[cprice12]

I play roller on Sundays-it's a game full of guys who have mainly played/play ice. I've occasionally suggested that we go to 4-on-4 because the surface is small. I've literally been laughed at.

4 on 4 is how beer league roller hockey leagues are played...at least everywhere that I have played.
I played roller hockey for 25 years, and I have never played in an organized league that went 5 on 5. Always 4 on 4.

[ecbm]

I play roller on Sundays-it's a game full of guys who have mainly played/play ice. I've occasionally suggested that we go to 4-on-4 because the surface is small. I've literally been laughed at.

4 on 4 is how beer league roller hockey leagues are played...at least everywhere that I have played.
I played roller hockey for 25 years, and I have never played in an organized league that went 5 on 5. Always 4 on 4.

Absolutely-but this is just a pickup game. Still, since it's traditional in roller and the surface is small I suggested 4v4. Nobody wanted it. Didn't consider it legitimate. Again, now we're supposed to want to watch pros play a version of hockey akin to what we do for those first 30 minutes while waiting for other guys. It's silly.

[cprice12]

I play roller on Sundays-it's a game full of guys who have mainly played/play ice. I've occasionally suggested that we go to 4-on-4 because the surface is small. I've literally been laughed at.

4 on 4 is how beer league roller hockey leagues are played...at least everywhere that I have played.
I played roller hockey for 25 years, and I have never played in an organized league that went 5 on 5. Always 4 on 4.

Absolutely-but this is just a pickup game. Still, since it's traditional in roller and the surface is small I suggested 4v4. Nobody wanted it. Didn't consider it legitimate. Again, now we're supposed to want to watch pros play a version of hockey akin to what we do for those first 30 minutes while waiting for other guys. It's silly.

I see. But still, after I quit playing organized hockey, I played pickup on Sunday mornings for a few years, and it was always 4 on 4 as well.

The guys you play with need a smack upside the head.

[glen a richter]

Here's a wild idea... go back to 5 on 5, 5 minutes, no one scores both teams get a point for the tie, end of story.

I'm sick of Bettman trying this flavor of the week and that flavor of the week to appease fans in non-traditional markets who don't understand hockey and have the attention span of a goldfish unless there's some glorified skills competition or 3 on 3 overtime or dropping the red line to make the game faster and supposedly generate more scoring. Changes which, by the way, have stastically not worked in accomplishing the presumed goal of increasing scoring.

[ecbm]

Here's a wild idea... go back to 5 on 5, 5 minutes, no one scores both teams get a point for the tie, end of story.

I'm sick of Bettman trying this flavor of the week and that flavor of the week to appease fans in non-traditional markets who don't understand hockey and have the attention span of a goldfish unless there's some glorified skills competition or 3 on 3 overtime or dropping the red line to make the game faster and supposedly generate more scoring. Changes which, by the way, have stastically not worked in accomplishing the presumed goal of increasing scoring.

Bettman's vision for the NHL is for it to become the NBA in the late 80s and 90s. Crapshoots on teams in dubious markets and lots of gimmicks. I hate it.

[ecbm]

And I have to say: Bettman strikes me as a crook and I wonder about corruption. His skill seems to be using the above-board payola (like the expansion fee stuff) to keep his bloc in line.

I don't think this arrangement is good for hockey at all-a non-hockey guy in charge of the NHL and approaching the job as a shilling for the owners combined with a PR gig.

[Kreegz2]

What happens when someone takes a penalty in OT? Penalty shot?

[STLADOGG]

What happens when someone takes a penalty in OT? Penalty shot?

Wow, great question. 2 on 3? Sounds horrifying.