Fixing Overtime, Shootouts, etc.

[STLADOGG]

Flip a coin after regulation....foolproof system.

[evil roy]

I have a plan that addresses all of the "scoring" issues for the NHL. It would raise the goals/game avg of every team in the league making for a more exciting game (if you like that kind of thing--me, I have no problem with 0-0 games), lower the chance of ties and thus overtimes. It doesn't specifically address overtime issues, but it would effect them the same as regulation.

You ready?

Here it comes . . .

1) Make the goal 4 inches taller and 8 inches wider, and . . . (this one is for goon attack)
2) Allow goalies to be checked like any other player if they leave the crease

Crazy? Maybe, but remember--that's what they said about Son of Sam . . .

[glen a richter]

I have a plan too. Tell the goalies they can't wear all the goddam body armor. Bring it back to old time hockey. Also, get rid of the helmets, reduce the maximum curve on a stick blade and prohibit dump and chase.

[philco_3]

I have a plan too. Tell the goalies they can't wear all the goddam body armor. Bring it back to old time hockey. Also, get rid of the helmets, reduce the maximum curve on a stick blade and prohibit dump and chase.

That would have been awesome for us last night cause the Blues rung the puck off of the Goalies head several times last night.

[xbleed83bluex]

I don't know if we've had a recent topic on this subject, but a week ago or so the NHL GMs convened to discuss several things, including social media policy for players and stuff. One of the topics they broached was fixing the overtime, mostly because shootouts suck.

The main ideas are to make overtime 8 minutes long, 10 minutes long, with half of it being played 4-on-4 and the other half 3-on-3. Ridiculous.

The more I think about this, the more to me it becomes obvious. If you want to fix overtime, make every game a 3 point game. Less games will go to overtime, and by default, less games will go to a shootout. Grabbing a third point will be crucial and teams will go all-out for it, especially later in the season when points are at a premium and teams are fighting for playoff positioning.

Forget about the nostalgia of team point records and crap like that. Detroit is the nation's glory hole, anyway. It's worth a try if you ask me, and I'm surprised that no one suggested it. A regulation win should inherently be more valuable than a shootout win, in the first place.

The problem with the 3-point theory is that is will completely mess up past team records. It's not about nostalgia, it's about organization. Let's hypothesize that each game was worth 3 points and I wanted to compare Detroit's current team record with their record in 1950. I wouldn't be able to do that since they are entirely different point systems. One could do it with the right equation to adjust for the inflation of that extra point but that could get difficult. Keeping it at 2 points per game would fit within the continuity and history of the NHL.

[xbleed83bluex]

Several people might disagree with this, but what's entirely wrong with scrapping the 5-minute overtime period all together and just going straight to the shootout? 4 on 4 Overtime seems to be a waste of time as of late anyway. I find the shootout very exciting and it keeps you on the edge of your seat.

For those who don't think a shootout is good way to decide a game, a shootout is a way of saying "since both of sorry ass teams were unable to win in regulation, you gotta do it in a shootout, fair or not." Besides, with Halak and BoyeZ, shootouts are going to benefit us most of the time anyway.

[JPonder94]

Several people might disagree with this, but what's entirely wrong with scrapping the 5-minute overtime period all together and just going straight to the shootout? 4 on 4 Overtime seems to be a waste of time as of late anyway. I find the shootout very exciting and it keeps you on the edge of your seat.

For those who don't think a shootout is good way to decide a game, a shootout is a way of saying "since both of sorry ass teams were unable to win in regulation, you gotta do it in a shootout, fair or not." Besides, with Halak and BoyeZ, shootouts are going to benefit us most of the time anyway.

You're right! Several people will disagree with this.

[kodos]

I don't know if we've had a recent topic on this subject, but a week ago or so the NHL GMs convened to discuss several things, including social media policy for players and stuff. One of the topics they broached was fixing the overtime, mostly because shootouts suck.

The main ideas are to make overtime 8 minutes long, 10 minutes long, with half of it being played 4-on-4 and the other half 3-on-3. Ridiculous.

The more I think about this, the more to me it becomes obvious. If you want to fix overtime, make every game a 3 point game. Less games will go to overtime, and by default, less games will go to a shootout. Grabbing a third point will be crucial and teams will go all-out for it, especially later in the season when points are at a premium and teams are fighting for playoff positioning.

Forget about the nostalgia of team point records and crap like that. Detroit is the nation's glory hole, anyway. It's worth a try if you ask me, and I'm surprised that no one suggested it. A regulation win should inherently be more valuable than a shootout win, in the first place.

The problem with the 3-point theory is that is will completely mess up past team records. It's not about nostalgia, it's about organization. Let's hypothesize that each game was worth 3 points and I wanted to compare Detroit's current team record with their record in 1950. I wouldn't be able to do that since they are entirely different point systems. One could do it with the right equation to adjust for the inflation of that extra point but that could get difficult. Keeping it at 2 points per game would fit within the continuity and history of the NHL.

Except that it's already all screwed up because the extra point makes everyone's point totals way higher. Plus the amount of games played in an NHL season has changed several times through the years.

For example, in the 1949/50 season, Detroit finished with the best record in the league and had 88 points. The only played 60 games at the time.

[ohio BLUES]

I don't know if we've had a recent topic on this subject, but a week ago or so the NHL GMs convened to discuss several things, including social media policy for players and stuff. One of the topics they broached was fixing the overtime, mostly because shootouts suck.

The main ideas are to make overtime 8 minutes long, 10 minutes long, with half of it being played 4-on-4 and the other half 3-on-3. Ridiculous.

The more I think about this, the more to me it becomes obvious. If you want to fix overtime, make every game a 3 point game. Less games will go to overtime, and by default, less games will go to a shootout. Grabbing a third point will be crucial and teams will go all-out for it, especially later in the season when points are at a premium and teams are fighting for playoff positioning.

Forget about the nostalgia of team point records and crap like that. Detroit is the nation's glory hole, anyway. It's worth a try if you ask me, and I'm surprised that no one suggested it. A regulation win should inherently be more valuable than a shootout win, in the first place.

The problem with the 3-point theory is that is will completely mess up past team records. It's not about nostalgia, it's about organization. Let's hypothesize that each game was worth 3 points and I wanted to compare Detroit's current team record with their record in 1950. I wouldn't be able to do that since they are entirely different point systems. One could do it with the right equation to adjust for the inflation of that extra point but that could get difficult. Keeping it at 2 points per game would fit within the continuity and history of the NHL.

Except that it's already all screwed up because the extra point makes everyone's point totals way higher. Plus the amount of games played in an NHL season has changed several times through the years.

Yeah, and I'm sure some enterprising lad will come up with another way to compare the teams throughout the years, if it's really that necessary.

In this case continuing to do something because that's the way it's always been done seems pretty silly. If you want to reduce the number of shootouts and ties, provide incentive to do so. Either go back and make a loss in overtime a loss (0 points) or make a win in regulation a super-win (3 points) and an overtime win a normal win (2 points). This way we can say... Boyes FTSW!

Like that would ever happen.

[glen a richter]

Several people might disagree with this, but what's entirely wrong with scrapping the 5-minute overtime period all together and just going straight to the shootout? 4 on 4 Overtime seems to be a waste of time as of late anyway. I find the shootout very exciting and it keeps you on the edge of your seat.

For those who don't think a shootout is good way to decide a game, a shootout is a way of saying "since both of sorry ass teams were unable to win in regulation, you gotta do it in a shootout, fair or not." Besides, with Halak and BoyeZ, shootouts are going to benefit us most of the time anyway.

You're right! Several people will disagree with this.

I agree with ProngerBlues44 about disagreeing with this idea.

[goon attack]

Nobody has topped my idea yet. Just sayin.

[STLADOGG]

Nobody has topped my idea yet. Just sayin.

I did...flip a coin...

[JPonder94]

How about jello wrestling between the two hottest wives of the players on the team?

Or what team looks better with their shirts off?

[ohio BLUES]

For those who care, here are your current NHL standings in the 3-point system. Not a whole lot of change at first glance, but I enjoy that it makes the Red Wings less impressive.

http://5-hole.com/alternative-standings ... hreepoints