langsgirl Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 (edited) I disagree. A penalty shot is still the most exciting play in hockey and it's earned during a game before the artificial aspect of a shootout. You can't have 4-on-4 forever. I'd have recommended 2:00 of 3-on-3 before the shootout. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why not have 4 on 4 forever..sounds fun! I think watching the penalty shot just feels like watching the end of the games now. I liked sudden death OT to tie game For those 5 minutes I was a nervous wreck..and i liked that... for the shootout..its like it doesnt even count..since those goals dont count.. i dunno..it just makes it feel fake. Edited November 28, 2005 by langsgirl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils_info Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Wow, I don't show up for a day and the thread all goes to hell. Okay, first, 7, I know you hate Bettman and all, I'm no fan either. But you need to take him for what he is: a puppet. He's just the guy who sits there and does what the GM's with their hands up his ass make him do. Don't think he's the great and powerful Oz of hockey and it is he and only he to blame for everything that is wrong with the sport. Jester: the glowing puck? You come back at me with the glowing puck? When I said gimmicky, the glowing puck is a stretch at best. That was mental retardation put in to practice thanks to the idiots at Fox. I should correct myself and say it was a gimmick for the fans, the term fans should be used loosely. The NHL is doing stuff for the guys that don't watch hockey on a regular basis. The NHL wants something to draw people that don't normally care in. The NHL knows that the shootout can do just that by what has just happened thanks to the Rangers. That goal made highlight reel after highlight reel. Sure, die-hard fans will criticize away, but the fact is we keep coming back for more. And sure, a few may say the NHL is dead and this is so bad, bring back the ties, I'm leaving, screw hockey. The amount of people that might actually leave being a fan of the sport vs. the amount of people that may actually pay to go see a game because it looks like more fun, for whatever reason, is reason enough for the NHL to bring in a shootout for OT decisions after OT. As for continuous play until a winner is decided is a bad idea. No, we don't coddle hockey players, but with a tough schedule in place (Sammy, you are right, ergo the Olympics) you do not want to overstretch your players on games that, individually, don't mean as much, especially since an OTL still gives you a point. Sure, disagree with that all you want but what is going on right now about goaltenders being overworked and now injured more frequently thanks to players crashing the net. We may not coddle them, but we certainly don't like it when someone gets hurt. Do you really want to stretch them even further making a regular season game last 7 periods? Even Doc said that goaltenders that used to play 70 games may only get in 55 or so because of the increase in play. So, take from this what you will. I don't mean to discredit anyone's opinion, or say one is better than the other, but lets face it, this was a GM decision just to make money. Screw tradition. Screw die-hard fans feelings. Screw what should and should not determine a winner. Cheep publicity sells, and that's what this does very easily. In just 20 games, they created something that now every sports show has talked about. In their minds, the shootout is already a success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Why not have 4 on 4 forever..sounds fun! I think watching the penalty shot just feels like watching the end of the games now. I liked sudden death OT to tie game For those 5 minutes I was a nervous wreck..and i liked that... for the shootout..its like it doesnt even count..since those goals dont count.. i dunno..it just makes it feel fake. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Four-on-four is great. I agree. But it also reminds me of some of the arguments people made for having it for the whole duration. Eh. Penalty shots to me still are great. I know shootouts might demean it. But a penalty shot is still the most pivotal play in the game. Because of momentum. I like sudden death too. Unfortunately, it can't go forever. It's like Clown said. I'm not in love with the shootout to decide these extra points which get there. But it hasn't been all bad. When you have people showing that Malik clip all over and talking about how you had to see it, that's not bad. The game needs as much press as it can get. That's the positive. But this is what Bettman wanted. There's always a turnback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 We can't have more than 5 minutes of OT because the rat-bastards at the NHLPA would never, ever allow it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJD Jester Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 Jester: the glowing puck? You come back at me with the glowing puck? When I said gimmicky, the glowing puck is a stretch at best. That was mental retardation put in to practice thanks to the idiots at Fox. Couldn't agree more. But it's the same kind of "bait for the casual fan" tactic as the shootout. I should correct myself and say it was a gimmick for the fans, the term fans should be used loosely. The NHL is doing stuff for the guys that don't watch hockey on a regular basis. The NHL wants something to draw people that don't normally care in. The NHL knows that the shootout can do just that by what has just happened thanks to the Rangers. That goal made highlight reel after highlight reel. But what good does that do for the sport? That's what I keep hearing from people: the shootout is for the casual fan; the shootout will bring casual fans to hockey. First of all, there's zero evidence that's been the case this season or last season in the AHL or in the Olympics or anywhere else. Secondly, what happens when these people drawn to the siren's song of the shootout come to a game or watch it on TV and find out (gasp!) there are 10 other players on the ice, and those super-special moves you see in the shootout happen, maybe, once in the normal course of play? Will they stick around to watch non-shootout hockey? It's like a fan who comes to the NBA after watching the slam-dunk competition. He'll be sorely disappointed after his first 10 travelling violations... As for continuous play until a winner is decided is a bad idea. No, we don't coddle hockey players, but with a tough schedule in place (Sammy, you are right, ergo the Olympics) you do not want to overstretch your players on games that, individually, don't mean as much, especially since an OTL still gives you a point.Sure, disagree with that all you want but what is going on right now about goaltenders being overworked and now injured more frequently thanks to players crashing the net. We may not coddle them, but we certainly don't like it when someone gets hurt. Do you really want to stretch them even further making a regular season game last 7 periods? Even Doc said that goaltenders that used to play 70 games may only get in 55 or so because of the increase in play. There's a simple solution for that, or for any team worried about fatigue: WIN THE GAME IN REGULATION OR THE FIRST OT. Seriously, how many of these marathon overtime games do you expect to see in the new NHL? It's not like the playoffs: it's 4-on-4, wide open, and now with the fresh scent of penalties. It's like a petrie dish for goal scoring. <JESTER> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#10 Duguay Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 The shootout is too popular in it's early stages to expect it to go away, but really the biggest problem the NHL has is that it CLAIMS that the reason for the shootout is to ELIMINATE ties. If the goal is REALLY to eliminate ties, then there should be no points for the loser. In the NHL, each game has always been worth 2 points. Until the past few years, which saw losers of OT games gain 1 point. So now all games are worth 2 points except for the handful worth 3. How do you justify that? A team that plays a 5-5 tie and goes to OT or shootout and loses gets a point, but a team who plays a 0-0 tie for 59 minutes and gives up a goal with 30 seconds to go gets no points. Why? THAT is what ruins the integrity of the NHL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 and with this season every game having a winner or loser the "loser" point is adding up much quicker than in past seasons. More 3 point games is so bothersome to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils_info Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 But what good does that do for the sport? That's what I keep hearing from people: the shootout is for the casual fan; the shootout will bring casual fans to hockey. First of all, there's zero evidence that's been the case this season or last season in the AHL or in the Olympics or anywhere else. Secondly, what happens when these people drawn to the siren's song of the shootout come to a game or watch it on TV and find out (gasp!) there are 10 other players on the ice, and those super-special moves you see in the shootout happen, maybe, once in the normal course of play? Will they stick around to watch non-shootout hockey? Well keep in mind theshootout is not the only thing that the NHL is using to entice the casual fan. More scoring, less clutch and grab, long plays, breakaways, all those sorts of things are geared to get the casual fan in to the sport. The shootout happens to be the icing on the cake, thats all. Keep in mind I am not saying this is right for the NHL to do, but more or less trying to justify the NHL's logic. I mean I can't see anyone proving the NHL is less exciting now then it was the past few seasons. The NHL is hurting for money, and things like this may bring in a few more bucks as opposed to if they just left things alone. It's like a fan who comes to the NBA after watching the slam-dunk competition. He'll be sorely disappointed after his first 10 travelling violations... There's a simple solution for that, or for any team worried about fatigue: WIN THE GAME IN REGULATION OR THE FIRST OT. Seriously, how many of these marathon overtime games do you expect to see in the new NHL? It's not like the playoffs: it's 4-on-4, wide open, and now with the fresh scent of penalties. It's like a petrie dish for goal scoring. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Easier said than done Jester! You make it sound like teams just wait for the 3rd OT to score that winning goal. And the only other alternative is to blow the game on purpose, which makes my skin crawl. What can you do to ensure that OT won't go in to multiple rounds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 And the only other alternative is to blow the game on purpose, which makes my skin crawl. What can you do to ensure that OT won't go in to multiple rounds? If I was a coach and my team was playing 3 games in four nights - let's say Friday, Saturday and Monday - and the Friday night game was going into OT, if it went over five minutes, I'd forfeit the game. One freakin' extra point ain't worth killing your guys so that you are going to lose 4 points on Saturday and Monday. And if both Friday and Saturday go to extra time, I'd just walk the team off after 60 minutes.... A point here and a point there in the regular season isn't worth killing your players over. Playoffs, sure. Regular season - who gives a rats ass other than people that do everything in their power to spit on the NHL anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils_info Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 so you'd rather do that than have a shootout? I don't think the fans would appreciate that very much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted November 28, 2005 Share Posted November 28, 2005 We can't have more than 5 minutes of OT because the rat-bastards at the NHLPA would never, ever allow it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those rat bastards took a lot less to return this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted November 29, 2005 Share Posted November 29, 2005 A longer overtime was never even presented to the NHLPA. Rat bastard bettman was hell bent on shootouts for 10 years, the 1998 canada olympic debacle probably postponed it for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.