Why do people hate the shootout

[fanaticV3.0]

and are ok with crap like this?

 

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/19/nhl-watching-3-on-3-ot-in-the-ahl-closely/

 

I had my first exposure to the new overtime rules when I went to see the Phantoms last month. As often is the case anymore, the game went to OT. It was explained to me that the AHL had a new system. They didn't just play 3-on-3, they started at 4-on-4 and did that for 7 minutes (odd number). Then, after a quick and dirty cleaning of the ice, they go to 3-on-3. If the game is not decided after that, then a shootout. More here: http://theahl.com/ahl-board-approves-rules-changes-p192792

 

That is one of the stupidest, most jumping through hoops for the sake of trying to get a result, gimmicky things I've ever heard of.

 

I hate OT hockey. Everything about it. The shootout, less players on the ice to create more space, etc. I don't prefer one over the other - it's all a gimmick.

 

I hate that the rules change for the PO too. The regular season is about points. The PO is about winning and losing (things that matter). This is the root of the problem imo. Players are conditioned to focus on getting points, not winning games.

[J0e Th0rnton]

and are ok with crap like this?

 

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/19/nhl-watching-3-on-3-ot-in-the-ahl-closely/

 

I had my first exposure to the new overtime rules when I went to see the Phantoms last month. As often is the case anymore, the game went to OT. It was explained to me that the AHL had a new system. They didn't just play 3-on-3, they started at 4-on-4 and did that for 7 minutes (odd number). Then, after a quick and dirty cleaning of the ice, they go to 3-on-3. If the game is not decided after that, then a shootout. More here: http://theahl.com/ahl-board-approves-rules-changes-p192792

 

That is one of the stupidest, most jumping through hoops for the sake of trying to get a result, gimmicky things I've ever heard of.

 

I hate OT hockey. Everything about it. The shootout, less players on the ice to create more space, etc. I don't prefer one over the other - it's all a gimmick.

 

I hate that the rules change for the PO too. The regular season is about points. The PO is about winning and losing (things that matter). This is the root of the problem imo. Players are conditioned to focus on getting points, not winning games.

I hate everything.

 

Shootout should never have happened. It punishes teams good enough to win in regulation regularly by making it possible for teams who do not win to get 2 points.

 

It should go back to a tie game with a point for each team ater 5 minutes of OT

[JackStraw]

I never liked the 4 on 4 gimmick either. I would like to see 10 minutes of real hockey (5 on 5), then just declare a tie if no one scores.

[fanaticV3.0]

I hate everything.

 

Shootout should never have happened. It punishes teams good enough to win in regulation regularly by making it possible for teams who do not win to get 2 points.

 

It should go back to a tie game with a point for each team ater 5 minutes of OT

 

Didn't they do away with ties because of the same exact rationale as the issue with the shootout now? Too many games without a definitive result?

 

You want incentive? Make it like every other sport, where record determines your fate, not points. If teams end up with similar records make the tie breaker something like record against each other or division opponents. Then you'll see less ties or OTL, because the wins will actually be vital.

 

I know this will never happen though, so if I had to pick, I'd go back to the old way too.

[fanaticV3.0]

I never liked the 4 on 4 gimmick either. I would like to see 10 minutes of real hockey (5 on 5), then just declare a tie if no one scores.

 

I can't stand it! I hate when people compare the shootout to a baseball game being decided by a homerun derby, but say nothing of 4-on-4. It makes me want to puke that the league is thinking of going the AHL's ridiculous route. 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3, lol. That's so ridiculous it's actually funny. There are people getting paid to come up with that crap.

[radoran]

You want incentive? Make it like every other sport, where record determines your fate, not points. If teams end up with similar records make the tie breaker something like record against each other or division opponents. Then you'll see less ties or OTL, because the wins will actually be vital.

 

Regulation/OT (non-shootout) wins are a tiebreaker in the league. That's the "ROW" column in the standings:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm

 

As are head-to-head and division records.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?page=nhl/tiebreakers

 

Like you, I hate the current overtime system.

 

I would prefer to see a 10 minute (or so) OT followed by a tie if no winner. For me, the real skewing of the standings comes from the three-point games and the "loser point".

 

Games are thus not "worth" the same number of points as each other. Some are more valuable than others.

 

That, for me, is just wrong.

[SpikeDDS]

Three words:

THAT'S NOT HOCKEY!

Let's hear it for 3-on-3 after the 4-on-4! THAT'S STILL HOCKEY!!

Think teams will be working on their faceoffs more? It'll make 5-on-5 even better!

[SpikeDDS]

Interesting that so many are actually ARGUING for kissing their sisters. I couldn't stand ties, although I still prefer them to SO. I don't have a problem with 4-on-4.

The players I've seen interviewed seem to like the idea of 3-on-3 after 4-on-4, but I agree that it may be pretty hard on D-men and goalies.

[radoran]

Interesting that so many are actually ARGUING for kissing their sisters. I couldn't stand ties, although I still prefer them to SO. I don't have a problem with 4-on-4.

The players I've seen interviewed seem to like the idea of 3-on-3 after 4-on-4, but I agree that it may be pretty hard on D-men and goalies.

 

There's just no way to play to a win in the regular season on a regular basis.

 

Even with 3-on-3 and 4-on-4 there's no guarantee of a "win" at the end.

 

I'd rather play 5-on-5 for 10 and then go home if no one scores. And I don't have a sister.

 

Playoffs are entirely different and there is absolutely nothing like overtime playoff hockey. Nothing at all.

[fanaticV3.0]

Three words:

THAT'S NOT HOCKEY!

Let's hear it for 3-on-3 after the 4-on-4! THAT'S STILL HOCKEY!!

Think teams will be working on their faceoffs more? It'll make 5-on-5 even better!

 

When teams are short one or two players, whether it is one or both teams that is penalized, that is hockey. What is being proposed would be like two boxers being forced to fight with one hand (their off hand no less) after a draw.

[Commander Clueless]

Call me a filthy casual, but I find shootouts exciting to watch. Especially live. There's a sudden death intensity to it.

 

As for the points awarded, I don't know. It's not hockey and doesn't seem quite right for an extra point as part of a "skills competition", but as @radoran said above me, continuous overtime really not possible in the regular season without exhausting the players.

 

If I'm honest, I prefer it to ties. Ties were such an anti-climactic end to a close game. At least I always felt that they were.

 

 

I'm open to exploring the point system, but I don't think I'd go back to ties.

[fanaticV3.0]

Regulation/OT (non-shootout) wins are a tiebreaker in the league. That's the "ROW" column in the standings:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/standings.htm

 

As are head-to-head and division records.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?page=nhl/tiebreakers

 

Like you, I hate the current overtime system.

 

I would prefer to see a 10 minute (or so) OT followed by a tie if no winner. For me, the real skewing of the standings comes from the three-point games and the "loser point".

 

Games are thus not "worth" the same number of points as each other. Some are more valuable than others.

 

That, for me, is just wrong.

 

Great, now if we could just eliminate the point system all-together...

 

At this point, so would I.

[fanaticV3.0]

Call me a filthy casual, but I find shootouts exciting to watch. Especially live. There's a sudden death intensity to it.

 

As for the points awarded, I don't know. It's not hockey and doesn't seem quite right for an extra point as part of a "skills competition", but as @radoran said above me, continuous overtime really not possible in the regular season without exhausting the players.

 

If I'm honest, I prefer it to ties. Ties were such an anti-climactic end to a close game. At least I always felt that they were.

 

 

I'm open to exploring the point system, but I don't think I'd go back to ties.

 

 

I'll say a couple of things.

 

Shootouts are not my favorite thing in the world, but I do agree with you they are more interesting/exciting than OT. OT hockey is awful. Teams just coast because they know they are guaranteed a point. I agree there is no intensity to it at all. They don't want to risk anything.That latter is just more gimmicks.

 

I'm not a huge fan of ties either. I don't mind one once and a while, but I think there were too many games without a real result. However, if I have to choose between ties and 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3, I choose ties.

[radoran]

I'll say a couple of things.

 

Shootouts are not my favorite thing in the world, but I do agree with you they are more interesting/exciting than OT. OT hockey is awful. Teams just coast because they know they are guaranteed a point. I agree there is no intensity to it at all. They don't want to risk anything.That latter is just more gimmicks.

 

I'm not a huge fan of ties either. I don't mind one once and a while, but I think there were too many games without a real result. However, if I have to choose between ties and 4-on-4 followed by 3-on-3, I choose ties.

 

I guess an appropriate question is how different would a non-points system be?

 

The NFL for example is strict wins/losses, but the Bengals/Tampa tie this season could have a significant affect on the outcome of the AFC North race.

 

I don't know, but are there examples of a team getting in "on points" with a "worse" record than a team in the same conference? I believe there have been examples of where a team with a lot of shootout points (Devils?) have made the playoffs.

[fanaticV3.0]

I guess an appropriate question is how different would a non-points system be?

 

The NFL for example is strict wins/losses, but the Bengals/Tampa tie this season could have a significant affect on the outcome of the AFC North race.

 

I don't know, but are there examples of a team getting in "on points" with a "worse" record than a team in the same conference? I believe there have been examples of where a team with a lot of shootout points (Devils?) have made the playoffs.

 

Aren't most team sports besides soccer and hockey? That is exactly why I think record carries more weight than the point system. If you aren't getting credit for an OTL or a tie, you want to win the game, because it would have consequences. I know the league will never do away with the points system, I'm just ranting because this new proposal sounds absurd.

 

Worse record, I do not know. But yeah, I'm looking at standings and OTL points does help teams at times. Colorado and St. Louis both had 52 wins and 30 losses last year, but Colorado had one more OTL and thus won the division by a point.

[Podein25]

@fanaticV3.0

You think OT hockey is awful?! I see lots of teams going for it in OT, way more 2-on-1s, way more breakaways, way more room.

 

[Podein25]

@fantaicV3.0

You prefer the shootout to OT as a way to decide games right?

OK then

[fanaticV3.0]

@fantaicV3.0

You prefer the shootout to OT as a way to decide games right?

OK then

 

I said what I would want to see (which I know will not happen) and what I would settle for several times now. You can refer to my previous comments in this thread if you are really interested.

[Podein25]

I said what I would want to see (which I know will not happen) and what I would settle for several times now. You can refer to my previous comments in this thread if you are really interested.

You said both are "gimmicks" but you prefer the shootout to the OT. Also, how is 4-4 OT hockey a "gimmick"?

[Old School Hockey]

If the league is hell bent on wins?  Why don't just track wins and losses?  I'll tell you why!  It's GARY F-ING BETTMAN and his desire for teams to remain in the race until the last minute of the season.

 

Look at Phoenix from a few years back.  They played for the SO and won like 16 games via SO.  I beileve they played in 25+ SO games that year.

[Old School Hockey]

You said both are "gimmicks" but you prefer the shootout to the OT. Also, how is 4-4 OT hockey a "gimmick"?

At least 4 on 4 is still team play.

 

Home run derby

Free throw contest

Free Goal Kicking Contest

[Podein25]

At least 4 on 4 is still team play.

Home run derby

Free throw contest

Free Goal Kicking Contest

4-4 is a natural part of the game of hockey. Happens frequently. More room, more ice, more possibilities, more risk. Changes the dynamic, separates the men from the boys. What's not to like?

[fanaticV3.0]

You said both are "gimmicks" but you prefer the shootout to the OT. Also, how is 4-4 OT hockey a "gimmick"?

 

I'd also rather step in dog **** than elephant ****.

 

4-on-4 hockey is not a gimmick. Forcing teams to play that way in OT is.

[Podein25]

I'd also rather step in dog **** than elephant ****.

4-on-4 hockey is not a gimmick. Forcing teams to play that way in OT is.

OK so you prefer the shootout to 4-4 OT. But not 5-5 OT?

Why? 4-4 opens the ice up. What's wrong with that? It's a perfectly normal hockey situation. Why does forcing it matter? Teams are "forced" to do all kinds of things by all kinds of rules. What's the big deal?

[fanaticV3.0]

OK so you prefer the shootout to 4-4 OT. But not 5-5 OT?

Why? 4-4 opens the ice up. What's wrong with that? It's a perfectly normal hockey situation. Why does forcing it matter? Teams are "forced" to do all kinds of things by all kinds of rules. What's the big deal?

 

I prefer to do away with it all and let teams play normal hockey, especially if we are discussing that abomination of a play mentioned in the links in my original comment. I've said this several times now.

 

There's nothing normal about forcing teams to play with less than the normal amount of players if there are no penalties. It is a disruption to the natural course of events for the sake of a definitive outcome (which is meant to make the product more appealing to fans). It's the definition of a gimmick. You don't have to agree with me, but if you cannot comprehend what I am saying at this point....well I'll just say you're not going to.