Possible New OT rules

[dmann422]

It wouldn't be the end of the world if they cut the ice before OT. It takes like what <10 mins? Doesn't have to be a full intermission, there isn't really food/drink served in arenas at this point, so no one cares to leave their seats except to use the bathroom. Then the guys have a nice clean sheet of ice to play on.

by doing this you are getting into a near 3 1/2 hour game. I don't want this to be mlb where I fall asleep and wake up 5 hours later and the game is still going.

[maxpower]

Yeah, I've never understood why you get a short change in regular season OT.    You don't get the short change in the first playoff OT

[devilsfan26]

could not agree more. One of the clear reasons to me that the nhl is way behind NBA MLB and heck maybe even mls in the USA is that they have these crazy rules and quirky systems. It's seems like they don't take themselves seriously so why should prospective fans?

The NHL is definitely more popular than MLS, and as much as I agree with you about the need to fix the overtime format, the reason the NHL isn't as popular as other sports isn't because of that, it's because hockey is a tough sport to get into.  It's just not a mainstream sport that is part of American culture like basketball, baseball, and football are.  We can go on all day explaining why, but this is a problem that transcends the NHL, so the NHL adjusting their overtime format isn't going to make the sport more popular.

 

by doing this you are getting into a near 3 1/2 hour game. I don't want this to be mlb where I fall asleep and wake up 5 hours later and the game is still going.

I don't think it would take that long.  They don't need a full intermission between the third and overtime.  There won't be any on-ice entertainment/contests like the mites on ice or score-o, and the ice cut can easily be done in five minutes.  If they have to, they can lay a little less water down so it freezes instantly and the players can get back on the ice as soon as the Zambonis get off.  I'm guessing there also wouldn't be commercials during overtime, so let's say with stoppages it takes on average about 5 minutes for the ice cut and then 15 minutes of actual time for a ten-minute overtime if nobody scores.  Ideally they get rid of the shootout but since that probably isn't happening anytime soon, you can add another 5-10 minutes for the shootout, so extending overtime to ten minutes and doing an ice cut beforehand would make the longest games at most about 30 minutes longer than a game that ends in regulation, and remember this is only if nobody scores during the ten-minute overtime. 

 

Currently I'd estimate that the one-minute break between regulation and OT, plus five-minute overtime, plus a shootout takes about 15 minutes, so really at the end of the day you're only adding another 15 minutes.

[ATLL765]

by doing this you are getting into a near 3 1/2 hour game. I don't want this to be mlb where I fall asleep and wake up 5 hours later and the game is still going.

If you can't stand an extra 15 minutes of hockey, I don't know what to tell you.

[dmann422]

If you can't stand an extra 15 minutes of hockey, I don't know what to tell you.

first, I never said that the reason the nhl is behind nba and MLB is because of overtime. I said that it is one reason and is indicative of how much of a Mickey Mouse league this is (yes I used that term lol), at least in the way it is run and marketed.

Also, I never said "I can't stand 15 more minutes if hockey." What I said was that adding a full ice cut and a 10 minute OT would add close to 40 minutes to a full game, and then the question is does it end in a tie? If so it would suck to invest 3 1/2 hours into the game and there was no result. If not you'd still want to add another 10 mins with a shootout? This also isn't getting into the tv issues such a system would cause.

Edit: on my phone so I can't multiquote but the first half of that was for devsfan26.

Edited November 18, 2013 by dmann422

[devilsfan26]

first, I never said that the reason the nhl is behind nba and MLB is because of overtime. I said that it is one reason and is indicative of how much of a Mickey Mouse league this is (yes I used that term lol), at least in the way it is run and marketed.

Also, I never said "I can't stand 15 more minutes if hockey." What I said was that adding a full ice cut and a 10 minute OT would add close to 40 minutes to a full game, and then the question is does it end in a tie? If so it would suck to invest 3 1/2 hours into the game and there was no result. If not you'd still want to add another 10 mins with a shootout? This also isn't getting into the tv issues such a system would cause.

I think both of you post a lot of great stuff but please don't misconstrue my posts so badly or take them out of context.

Hockey is just not as popular as football, baseball, and basketball, and that is why the NHL isn't as popular as the NFL, MLB, and NBA.  I don't think the NHL changing rules really contributes to the sport's overall popularity.  The way they market the sport has a much bigger impact, and also USA Hockey doing grassroots things like nationwide Try Hockey for Free Days at local rinks could help.  I hate basketball and it has nothing to do with the NBAs rules, and if they changed some rules around or adjusted how ties are settled, it would not only do nothing to lure me in, but I probably wouldn't even know about it anyway.

 

Also I'm not sure how you're figuring this would add 40-50 minutes to the game.  In the breakdown I came up with there is a lot of estimating, but can you point out which estimates you disagree with?

[ATLL765]

first, I never said that the reason the nhl is behind nba and MLB is because of overtime. I said that it is one reason and is indicative of how much of a Mickey Mouse league this is (yes I used that term lol), at least in the way it is run and marketed.

Also, I never said "I can't stand 15 more minutes if hockey." What I said was that adding a full ice cut and a 10 minute OT would add close to 40 minutes to a full game, and then the question is does it end in a tie? If so it would suck to invest 3 1/2 hours into the game and there was no result. If not you'd still want to add another 10 mins with a shootout? This also isn't getting into the tv issues such a system would cause.

I think you post a lot of great stuff but please don't misconstrue my posts so badly or take them out of context.

Like DF26 said, I'm not advocating a full intermission to be added or anything. Just cut the ice and get back to hockey. Call it a half intermission. Instead of the 17 mins, it's like 8-10 mins to cut the ice, then an extra 7.5 mins of hockey, since it's always about 30 secs of whistle/face offs/etc to 1 min of playing time. With that in mind, games should only be about 3 hours or 30 mins longer than a non OT game. With a 3 hour game, you can still be out of the arena by 10:30 and be wherever you call home by midnight, even if you live down the shore.

Edited November 18, 2013 by ATLL765

[NJDevils1214]

I'd rather see 3v3 OT than a shootout. At lest then the hockey matters and we get to see some good plays and not just individual talent. Could you imagine how amazing a 3 on 1 save would be for a goalie? There would also be more hockey plays and strategy involved.

[dmann422]

Hockey is just not as popular as football, baseball, and basketball, and that is why the NHL isn't as popular as the NFL, MLB, and NBA. I don't think the NHL changing rules really contributes to the sport's overall popularity. The way they market the sport has a much bigger impact, and also USA Hockey doing grassroots things like nationwide Try Hockey for Free Days at local rinks could help. I hate basketball and it has nothing to do with the NBAs rules, and if they changed some rules around or adjusted how ties are settled, it would not only do nothing to lure me in, but I probably wouldn't even know about it anyway.

Also I'm not sure how you're figuring this would add 40-50 minutes to the game. In the breakdown I came up with there is a lot of estimating, but can you point out which estimates you disagree with?

the nhl does not help itself out when it comes to presenting itself as a serious professional sports league, and that has to do with gimmicks, rule changes, work stoppages, fighting, and a lot of other things I could go on about but won't in an attempt to stay on topic.

Once agin you seem to try to misconstrue my assertion. Funny how in my post "adds close to 40 mins" turns into "40-50 mins" in your post.

Nevertheless, by the time you get the players off the ice and back on it would take a minimum of 15 mins before the puck drops. 10 mins of play plus a few minutes of stoppages and your over 30 mins easy.

I personally don't want to bring back ties, I don't like the shootout and would just like to use it as a tiebreaker but I like leaving a game with a result. So for me a 10 min overtime is nice but if nothing results then I leave the game saying to myself "I just paid 80 bucks to see a game with no result."

[devilsfan26]

the nhl does not help itself out when it comes to presenting itself as a serious professional sports league, and that has to do with gimmicks, rule changes, work stoppages, fighting, and a lot of other things I could go on about but won't in an attempt to stay on topic.

Once agin you seem to try to misconstrue my assertion. Funny how in my post "adds close to 40 mins" turns into "40-50 mins" in your post.

Nevertheless, by the time you get the players off the ice and back on it would take a minimum of 15 mins before the puck drops. 10 mins of play plus a few minutes of stoppages and your over 30 mins easy.

I personally don't want to bring back ties, I don't like the shootout and would just like to use it as a tiebreaker but I like leaving a game with a result. So for me a 10 min overtime is nice but if nothing results then I leave the game saying to myself "I just paid 80 bucks to see a game with no result."

I am not misconstruing anything, I am using the exact numbers you came up with.  Your post said, "What I said was that adding a full ice cut and a 10 minute OT would add close to 40 minutes to a full game, and then the question is does it end in a tie? If so it would suck to invest 3 1/2 hours into the game and there was no result. If not you'd still want to add another 10 mins with a shootout?"  So when you do the math, your extreme estimate of 40 minutes for a 10-minute overtime plus "add another 10 mins with a shootout" comes out to 40-50 minutes.

 

There's no way it would take 15 minutes between the third and overtime.  I have been cutting ice for four years and I can tell you the ice cut can be done in five minutes no problem.  The players don't even have to go to the locker room, but if they do, it would only take a minute or so for them to go there and then come back.  Fifteen minutes is about double the amount of time it would take.

 

I'd rather see 3v3 OT than a shootout. At lest then the hockey matters and we get to see some good plays and not just individual talent. Could you imagine how amazing a 3 on 1 save would be for a goalie? There would also be more hockey plays and strategy involved.

3 on 1s would be extremely rare because if the goalie makes that save and kicks the rebound out, now you have a 2 on 0 going the other way.  The "strategy involved" would be to play even more cautiously than before because with fewer players on the ice, every little mistake is magnified.  I remember there was a 3 on 3 during a Kings and Rangers game a few years ago, and it wasn't this balls to the walls back and forth action, it was just very slow and deliberate because neither team wanted to give up possession of the puck.

Edited November 18, 2013 by devilsfan26

[dmann422]

I suppose I am being realistic in my expectations. I admit I've never resurfaced ice before so I'll defer to you.

If you play a shoutout after the 10 min ot you need to resurface in between the dots again.

It's a moot point as I don't think the league would do it anyway and I don't think it is that big of a deal, they already play 5 mins without a resurface.

Edited November 18, 2013 by dmann422

[devilsfan26]

I suppose I am being realistic in my expectations. I admit I've never resurfaced ice before so I'll defer to you.

If you play a shoutout after the 10 min ot you need to resurface in between the dots again.

It's a moot point as I don't think the league would do it anyway and I don't think it is that big of a deal, they already play 5 mins without a resurface.

They might not need to cut the ice before the shootout if they do it before overtime.  Currently the ice is in use for 25 minutes of playing time between the last ice cut and the shootout.  If they do an ice cut before overtime, then it's only 10 minutes, but even if they decide to still do the dry cut down the middle, that only takes a couple minutes.

[ATLL765]

I suppose I am being realistic in my expectations. I admit I've never resurfaced ice before so I'll defer to you.

If you play a shoutout after the 10 min ot you need to resurface in between the dots again.

It's a moot point as I don't think the league would do it anyway and I don't think it is that big of a deal, they already play 5 mins without a resurface.

My hope is that the SO disappears. So I put that into my fantasy. If they did a resurface before the OT, maybe they could get away with not doing one before the SO. Probably not though.

 

 

the nhl does not help itself out when it comes to presenting itself as a serious professional sports league, and that has to do with gimmicks, rule changes, work stoppages, fighting, and a lot of other things I could go on about but won't in an attempt to stay on topic.

Once agin you seem to try to misconstrue my assertion. Funny how in my post "adds close to 40 mins" turns into "40-50 mins" in your post.

Nevertheless, by the time you get the players off the ice and back on it would take a minimum of 15 mins before the puck drops. 10 mins of play plus a few minutes of stoppages and your over 30 mins easy.

I personally don't want to bring back ties, I don't like the shootout and would just like to use it as a tiebreaker but I like leaving a game with a result. So for me a 10 min overtime is nice but if nothing results then I leave the game saying to myself "I just paid 80 bucks to see a game with no result."

 

A tie is a result though. Is the SO really that important to you that without seeing one, a game could go from quality entertainment to waste of money?

[sundstrom]

Any source to that?

 

chiarelli (boston GM) mentioned it to reporters when asked about GM meetings last week and what came of them.

 

as for cutting the ice in between - a full cut takes 7 minutes. certainly doable but I'm not convinced it's necessary. with the long change and 4 on 4, i'd expect you would see games that went to OT settled before shootout 75% of the time. chewed up ice or not, you're going to get gassed players and icings that will lead to goals being scored.

 

this is the "smallest" change they can do to the existing format if the goal is to get more games decided before a shootout without reinventing the wheel again.

[devilsfan26]

I think if they went to ten-minute overtimes, they would have to do an ice cut beforehand.  Thirty minutes is a long time with no cut, plus I think a fresh surface would lead to more goals because they will be able to skate and pass faster.

[dmann422]

My hope is that the SO disappears. So I put that into my fantasy. If they did a resurface before the OT, maybe they could get away with not doing one before the SO. Probably not though.

A tie is a result though. Is the SO really that important to you that without seeing one, a game could go from quality entertainment to waste of money?

meh, tbh I'm just playing a bit of devils advocate here. I'll still be a fan and watch every devils game no matter what.

But to me there is something of value in leaving with a result. I was against the SO when it was started I thought it was a gimmick (and it still is) but I do like the fact that the game ends in something other than a tie. If a tie wasn't a bad thing why play overtime at all? Why not just stop after 60?

[ATLL765]

meh, tbh I'm just playing a bit of devils advocate here. I'll still be a fan and watch every devils game no matter what.

But to me there is something of value in leaving with a result. I was against the SO when it was started I thought it was a gimmick (and it still is) but I do like the fact that the game ends in something other than a tie. If a tie wasn't a bad thing why play overtime at all? Why not just stop after 60?

All the major sports have some sort of OT format. Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Hockey all have extra time given if the game is tied after 60 mins.

[dmann422]

I think if they went to ten-minute overtimes, they would have to do an ice cut beforehand. Thirty minutes is a long time with no cut, plus I think a fresh surface would lead to more goals because they will be able to skate and pass faster.

this may be a dumb question when it comes to this but is the ice breakdown exponential? Like in that extra 5 mins of playing time where the ice hasn't been resurfaced for 25 mins will it get more choppy than say the first 5 mins after a resurface?

[dmann422]

All the major sports have some sort of OT format. Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Hockey all have extra time given if the game is tied after 60 mins.

exactly. And what do all of those have in common? They never end in a tie (nfl is a slight exception in that they very very rarely have ties... Less than 2 a year throughout the whole league).

Every sport plays until a winner and loser is determined.

I'm not even advocating for a shootout to award he hypothetical 3rd point, I'm just saying to use it as a standings tiebreaker.

[Muevelos]

I've seen soccer games end 0-0..most boring thing ever...

exactly. And what do all of those have in common? They never end in a tie (nfl is a slight exception in that they very very rarely have ties... Less than 2 a year throughout the whole league).

Every sport plays until a winner and loser is determined.

I'm not even advocating for a shootout to award he hypothetical 3rd point, I'm just saying to use it as a standings tiebreaker.

[devilsfan26]

this may be a dumb question when it comes to this but is the ice breakdown exponential? Like in that extra 5 mins of playing time where the ice hasn't been resurfaced for 25 mins will it get more choppy than say the first 5 mins after a resurface?

You're asking if the rate at which it gets chewed up increases over time, right?  It's kind of hard to quantify that, but there is a very big difference in ice quality at the end of each period compared to at the start of each period.  After 20 minutes, there's a lot of deep ruts in the ice and a lot of snow built up, both of which slow down the skaters and the puck and sometimes cause weird bounces that break up passing plays. 

 

I think they would have to do an ice cut before overtime if they were to extend it to ten minutes, the ice would be in pretty bad shape by then.  They could lay less water down if necessary to make sure the entire surface is frozen as they drive off the ice.  You might not end up with as good a surface as you would after a normal intermission, but for the purpose of getting the players back on the ice ASAP, it would be good enough, all the snow buildup would be gone and the ruts would be cut out.  If they do this, they could probably get away without doing the dry cut down the middle before the shootout if they wanted to, but that doesn't take very long so I think they would keep that.

[dmann422]

You're asking if the rate at which it gets chewed up increases over time, right? It's kind of hard to quantify that, but there is a very big difference in ice quality at the end of each period compared to at the start of each period. After 20 minutes, there's a lot of deep ruts in the ice and a lot of snow built up, both of which slow down the skaters and the puck and sometimes cause weird bounces that break up passing plays.

I think they would have to do an ice cut before overtime if they were to extend it to ten minutes, the ice would be in pretty bad shape by then. They could lay less water down if necessary to make sure the entire surface is frozen as they drive off the ice. You might not end up with as good a surface as you would after a normal intermission, but for the purpose of getting the players back on the ice ASAP, it would be good enough, all the snow buildup would be gone and the ruts would be cut out. If they do this, they could probably get away without doing the dry cut down the middle before the shootout if they wanted to, but that doesn't take very long so I think they would keep that.

correct, I obviously know ice quality deteriorates over playing time, I'm wondering if the rate at which it deteriorates increases.

So if you play 30 minutes on it without resurfacing (which is only 5 more mins than is played in it now) is that final 5 mins exponentially worse to warrant the need to resurface?

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I've seen soccer games...most boring thing ever...

 

fixed

 

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Soccer

 

A total of 110 games have been played in the Premier League so far this season, and 13 of them have ended in 0-0 "draws".  Another 25 have ended in 1-0 wins.  Half that league averages 1 goal for per game or less.  Outstanding. 

 

 

correct, I obviously know ice quality deteriorates over playing time, I'm wondering if the rate at which it deteriorates increases.

So if you play 30 minutes on it without resurfacing (which is only 5 more mins than is played in it now) is that final 5 mins exponentially worse to warrant the need to resurface?

 

Prior to the 1910-11 season, the NHA games (precursor to NHL) used to be played in two 30-minute halves.  It was changed to (3) 20 minute periods due to the ice quality being so bad by the end of each half, but I'm sure the technology to make good ice back then was nowhere near what it is now.   

Edited November 18, 2013 by Colorado Rockies 1976

[dmann422]

fixed

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Soccer

A total of 110 games have been played in the Premier League so far this season, and 13 of them have ended in 0-0 "draws". Another 25 have ended in 1-0 wins. Half that league averages 1 goal for per game or less. Outstanding.

Prior to the 1910-11 season, the NHA games (precursor to NHL) used to be played in two 30-minute halves. It was changed to (3) 20 minute periods due to the ice quality being so bad by the end of each half, but I'm sure the technology to make good ice back then was nowhere near what it is now.

interesting... I never really considered how they took care of ice back then. Did people just come on and shave the ice by hand?

[redruM]

All the major sports have some sort of OT format. Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Hockey all have extra time given if the game is tied after 60 mins.

I could be wrong about the MLS, but soccer around the world does not have OT unless you are int he knockout round of a tournament, like the world cup, but round robin play, no OT.

I've seen soccer games end 0-0..most boring thing ever...

Clearly you either donot understand the game or you are wathcing bad teams...

 

my guess is probably both...

Edited November 18, 2013 by redruM