Neb00rs Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 AHL format or 5 minutes of 3-on-3? Personally, I still think they should go with a two period format, so a long play doesn't end up cutting into 3 on 3 time. I'd like something like the AHL format of 7 minutes total, with a set 4 minutes of 4 on 4 and 3 minutes of 3 on 3 or vice versa. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/nhl-gms-approve-3-on-3-overtime--but-what-format--183117113.html "The question now is which of two ideas to use: five minutes of 3-on-3 or the American Hockey League format. Starting this season, the AHL went to seven minutes of OT – 4-on-4 until the first whistle after the three-minute mark, then 3-on-3. The GMs will discuss it with their coaches and players. The competition committee, which includes representatives from the NHL Players’ Association, will discuss it. Ultimately rule changes must be approved by the NHL Board of Governors. If all the hurdles are cleared, the NHL could have 3-on-3 OT as soon as next season." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StormJosh Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I don't understand why an extra 5 minutes of 4-on-4 wasn't an option. Given the options I would prefer 5 minutes of 3 on 3. I'd like to do whatever option minimizes the appearance of shootouts. Not because the Devils are bad at it, but because I enjoy watching the game more than the shootout. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I don't understand why an extra 5 minutes of 4-on-4 wasn't an option. Given the options I would prefer 5 minutes of 3 on 3. I'd like to do whatever option minimizes the appearance of shootouts. Not because the Devils are bad at it, but because I enjoy watching the game more than the shootout. This for freaking days! This is like the most turned-a-blind-eye-towards issue by Bettman. I'd rather watch hours of scoreless overtime than a 5 shooter shootout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I don't understand why an extra 5 minutes of 4-on-4 wasn't an option. Because whatever ideas the whining sniveling Red Wings put in Bettman's ear day after day soon become gospel (yes I'm still angry at them for pissing on their St Louis and Chicago rivalries by sliming over to the East) but really.....3 on 3 is a step away from a goddamn shootout anyway 4 on 4 is vastly superior and 10 minutes of it would fix the shootout problem (well aside of NOT HAVING THEM anymore)....but oh well.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Not a huge fan of 3 on 3, but this is a step in the right direction. We're going to see a big dropoff in shootouts. To be honest, if a game after 3 on 3 is still tied...it should be a tie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) I don't really think 3-on-3 is a 'step away' from a shootout. I think it's maintains the integrity of the game and is exciting at the same time. Shootouts are stupid yes, but now they are also a bore, and as always. completely take away from the game. 3-on-3 is the right solution. However, I also wouldn't mind bringing ties back if there's no winner after 3-on-3. Edited March 17, 2015 by Neb00rs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I'm not against ties but I just can never see them coming back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted March 17, 2015 Author Share Posted March 17, 2015 I'm not against ties but I just can never see them coming back. Same. Whether they're best for the dignity of the game or not, they are not best for attracting new fans to the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broten1 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Not a huge fan of 3 on 3, but this is a step in the right direction. We're going to see a big dropoff in shootouts. To be honest, if a game after 3 on 3 is still tied...it should be a tie. Much agreed sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarDew Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Soon this game will be nothing like the game I love. Another gimmick or 2 away from being a total aberration imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Soon this game will be nothing like the game I love. Another gimmick or 2 away from being a total aberration imo. Umm, I mean what exactly do you want here? They are trying to lessen the gimmicky shootouts with 3-on-3. So you want ties? Well, maybe you would enjoy that, but the game is trying to grow, and ties are not conducive to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarDew Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Umm, I mean what exactly do you want here? They are trying to lessen the gimmicky shootouts with 3-on-3. So you want ties? Well, maybe you would enjoy that, but the game is trying to grow, and ties are not conducive to that. Shootouts, yes a gimmick. 4 on 4 well I got used to it however I never really liked it. 3 on 3??? I find this to be a gimmick. I never minded ties. Don't want ties them why not play until someone scores? Good enough for the playoffs but not good enough for the regular season? The standings were more accurate of a team's performance. Extra time, no problem. Changing the game to the point that it doesn't resemble hockey isn't for me. Look at the points a player has currently. They shrink every time a change is made. Don't like that Brodeur was a good puck handling goalie so let's cut down on that ability. Let's change offsides. Let's change everything. We need more scoring and we don't need enforcers. It is just a bit much for me. I cannot stop the changes but I don't have to like them either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Shootouts, yes a gimmick. 4 on 4 well I got used to it however I never really liked it. 3 on 3??? I find this to be a gimmick. I never minded ties. Don't want ties them why not play until someone scores? Good enough for the playoffs but not good enough for the regular season? The standings were more accurate of a team's performance. Extra time, no problem. Changing the game to the point that it doesn't resemble hockey isn't for me. Look at the points a player has currently. They shrink every time a change is made. Don't like that Brodeur was a good puck handling goalie so let's cut down on that ability. Let's change offsides. Let's change everything. We need more scoring and we don't need enforcers. It is just a bit much for me. I cannot stop the changes but I don't have to like them either. The Brodeur rule is different, it was almost surely instituted simply to stop Marty from handling the puck, not to grow the game (though that's how they posed it). Sure, a lot of us die hard hockey fans on here want the old rules back, but it can't happen for the good of the game. You can't play until someone scores in the regular season, or players will be dropping dead by game 40. 3-on-3 is really the only solution, and that is why the GMs are pushing for it. Edited March 18, 2015 by Neb00rs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarDew Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Like I said, I don't have to like it. Things change. I don't have to adapt to everything. This is what needs to be done to attract who? Families? People who don't know the game at all? Just like with TV shows, a subset of the population is catered to. I have accepted that I don't belong in the subset. I am still entitled to having an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Of course you are, I never said otherwise, I just engaged you in debate as is the standard process on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Shootouts, yes a gimmick. 4 on 4 well I got used to it however I never really liked it. 3 on 3??? I find this to be a gimmick. I never minded ties. Don't want ties them why not play until someone scores? Good enough for the playoffs but not good enough for the regular season? The standings were more accurate of a team's performance. Extra time, no problem. Changing the game to the point that it doesn't resemble hockey isn't for me. Look at the points a player has currently. They shrink every time a change is made. Don't like that Brodeur was a good puck handling goalie so let's cut down on that ability. Let's change offsides. Let's change everything. We need more scoring and we don't need enforcers. It is just a bit much for me. I cannot stop the changes but I don't have to like them either. Too many logistic issues to have continuous overtime during the regular season. It's just not feasible.You really miss the old offsides rules? The current rule is perfect, it creates less stoppages for really no reason. Edited March 18, 2015 by Satans Hockey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarDew Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Neb00rs I never said you did or said anything that I needed to defend. Please don't read anything into it. I was replying to your question. Edited March 18, 2015 by StarDew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Too many logistic issues to have continuous overtime during the regular season. It's just not feasible. You really miss the old offsides rules? The current rule is perfect, it creates less stoppages for really no reason. Yeah, touch up offsides has been one of the better changes. The new icing rule doesn't exactly have an authentic feel to it, but it's nice see players not have to crash into the boards and sustain career-threatening injuries. Edited March 18, 2015 by Neb00rs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 We've had it in the SHL for awhile. Sure it gets exciting when you see a breakdown and then you get end-to-end rushes, but coaches and players know that. If you don't score you most likely get a 2 on 1 going the other way. Coaches and players get cautious and you'll probably see a lot of passive hockey. Yes, coaches are risk averse, who'd have thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruM Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) I don't really think 3-on-3 is a 'step away' from a shootout. I think it's maintains the integrity of the game and is exciting at the same time. Intergrity of the game? Does baseball goto 7 v 7 in extra inning? Does football go 7 v7 in OT? Does Basketball go 4 v4 or 3v 3 in OT? changing the game for OT in ther regular season but NOT in the playoffs just proves this whole thing is a circus.. 5 v5 until there is a winner, plain and simple... I also HATE the fact that there are 3 points awarded for OT games, but only 2 for regulation wins.. I think regulation wins should be worth 3 points, all games should be worth the same amount... Edited March 18, 2015 by redruM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 My vote would be 5 minutes of 4 on 4, 5 minutes of 3 on 3. 10 minute period. First whistle after 5:10 remaining you make the change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 i like 10 minute OT's but I can't see the NHL wanting games to go longer then they already are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Intergrity of the game? Does baseball goto 7 v 7 in extra inning? Does football go 7 v7 in OT? Does Basketball go 4 v4 or 3v 3 in OT? changing the game for OT in ther regular season but NOT in the playoffs just proves this whole thing is a circus.. 5 v5 until there is a winner, plain and simple... I also HATE the fact that there are 3 points awarded for OT games, but only 2 for regulation wins.. I think regulation wins should be worth 3 points, all games should be worth the same amount... First off, that comparison is silly. Hockey can function 3-on-3 much better than football can. Furthermore, hockey already has three players on the ice sometimes when there is a penalty. It's part of the game. Now they are going to make it more a part in order to get rid of the stupid shootouts. And I'm not sure what you mean by '5 on 5 until someone scores.' Do you mean you want ties back? Or that you want continuous OT during the regular season? The latter is ridiculous. Players can't play continuous OT during the season, or they will die. Yeah back-to-back games when your team just played until 2 am the first game: that'll work. Or just wait, for the team that plays 20 2OT games during the season. They'll all collapse by game 46. Oh and I am sure networks will love regular season NHL games cutting into their programming. On the other hand, if you are saying you want 5 mins of 5 on 5 and then a tie if no one scores, we'll that is just not happening. And to think 5v5 is the only authentic form of hockey is just wrong. Often half the game isn't played 5v5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Senior VP of Hockey Operations echoes Bettman's stupid statement, "Shootouts are fun and the fans love them." It thoroughly pisses me off when these crotchety old men make blind assumptions without having a damn clue about the pulse of the fans. Sure, there may be a minority of people who still find the shootouts to be fun and entertaining, but I think it is a very fair assumption that they are, in fact, the minority. The luster of the stupid gimmick wore off a while ago. if the fans "loved" the shootout so much and the players also thought it was a good idea, why would they be talking about adding 3 on 3? .end rant. Edited March 18, 2015 by jagknife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 My vote would be 5 minutes of 4 on 4, 5 minutes of 3 on 3. 10 minute period. First whistle after 5:10 remaining you make the change. I completely agree with this. I am simply accepting what seems obvious: they don't want to go past 7 mins. Senior VP of Hockey Operations echoes Bettman's stupid statement, "Shootouts are fun and the fans love them." It thoroughly pisses me off when these crotchety old men make blind assumptions without having a damn clue about the pulse of the fans. Sure, there may be a minority of people who still find the shootouts to be fun and entertaining, but I think it is a very fair assumption that they are, in fact, the minority. The luster of the stupid gimmick wore off a while ago. if the fans "loved" the shootout so much and the players also thought it was a good idea, why would they be talking about adding 3 on 3? .end rant. To be fair, Cangi said the same thing yesterday. "The fans like them..." or something like that. 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.