Jump to content

3 on 3 OT? Like it or not?


BluPuk

3 on 3 OT. Like it or not?  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. 3 on 3 OT. Like it or not?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      3
    • Not a huge fan, but anything to avoid a shootout!
      11
    • Not sure Yet
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Goalies are great, but 1 on 1 shootouts really put them at a disadvantage. It is hard enough during the game to stop a breakaway, but seeing a breakway one right after another is almost impossible.

1 on 1 puts them at a disadvantage but 3 on 3 doesn't?

The whole point of these gimmicks is to get goals scored regardless of how the goalie looks.

The proper way to end a tie game is with a tie - as they did from 1917 to 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proper way to end a tie game is with a tie - as they did from 1917 to 2005.

 

Bingo!

 

Now that I've seen the 3 on 3 a few times, I'm more set than ever in more original opinion. It's better than a shootout by a long shot, but I'm not crazy about it. It looks weird. Very, very weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

FWIW,

I MUCH prefer 3v3 to a shootout. And I do think I prefer it to a kiss-your-sister ending. I don't actually have a sister, but if she was hot...hmmm...nope. Still no.

What was I talking about again? Lost my train of thought.

Oh yeah, if the NHL has to sell a kiss-your-sister moment as a potential ending to one of their games, it CANNOT be the best thing. NOBODY leaves happy.

And speaking of the MLB, as someone tried to compare hockey to earlier in the thread, you will remember the poop-storm that Bud Selig took for ending that All-Star game in a tie in the 17th inning, was it? Why? Because ties suck, that's why! Even a game as slow as baseball is smart enough to know that!

Oh, and as for ties being in the game for a hundred years, rotary telephones were in use for just about that long also. Just saying.

There's the 4-1-1 from Spike, or for you rotary phone and hockey tie fans, that would be zip-click-click-click-click, zip-click, zip-click.

(I, of course, remember those rotary phones well, because my home telephone number had a couple of 9's in it. Took FOREVER!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW,

I MUCH prefer 3v3 to a shootout. And I do think I prefer it to a kiss-your-sister ending. I don't actually have a sister, but if she was hot...hmmm...nope. Still no.

What was I talking about again? Lost my train of thought.

Oh yeah, if the NHL has to sell a kiss-your-sister moment as a potential ending to one of their games, it CANNOT be the best thing. NOBODY leaves happy.

 

In theory, the following would be logical:

  1. If the home team wins, everyone leaves happy.
  2. If the home team loses, everyone leaves disappointed.
  3. If the game ends in a tie, fans have to be somewhere between those two extremes.

So give your sister a big kiss! (On the cheek should suffice.) She's family and she'll love it. (For those of you that have sisters.)  :wub[1]:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, the following would be logical:

  1. If the home team wins, everyone leaves happy.
  2. If the home team loses, everyone leaves disappointed.
  3. If the game ends in a tie, fans have to be somewhere between those two extremes.

That logic assumes that there are zero fans for the visiting team in the stands, which is never true. Even when the visiting team wins, SOMEONE goes home happy.

Trust me, I'm no fan of the shootout, but I also want to see the game grow. 3v3 OT (after an unsuccessful 4v4) is the least of three evils, and has the greatest potential to end games as true to the game as possible while having happy fans leave arenas.

(And since I DON'T actually have a sister, if she was hot, the correct answer IS no, right?) ;-P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with ties. I think the "No one leaves happy" thing is overstated and largely depends upon how the tie was reached.

I've seen very boring ties. I've seen very boring 7-1 games. Hell, I've seen boring 2-0 games. But I've also seen exciting versions of all of the above.

So far, though, I've enjoyed the drunken NASCAR race that is the 3v3.

I'm okay with it.

But if it's kissing your sister vs. the shootout, reinstate the tie, move a team to West Virginia, and everybody wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

 

I agree with you that ties are preferable to the SO. Just because the game produces a winner and a loser doesn't mean the SO is better. It isn't, though it does have that going for it. What it didn't have going for it is contrivance, which INHO far outweighed the value of determining a winner.

 

My biggest problem with the SO was how contrived it was. They weren't playing hockey anymore. I didn't like guys not playing hockey determining the outcome of a hockey game.

 

3v3 is far less contrived than the SO. You're still playing hockey, albeit differently. Is there contrivance? Yes. Does it go as far as the SO does in contrivance factor? IMO no, it doesn't. AND you get a winner. AND, to be honest, it harkens back to when you are a kid and you've only got 8 kids and you want to play a pickup game, and it's 3v3. That's still hockey.

 

IMO (and it's just an opinion), 3v3 OT is a better balance than either ties or the SO, and as a result I think it improves our game. Admittedly, that improvement does not come without a cost vs. ties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


AND, to be honest, it harkens back to when you are a kid and you've only got 8 kids and you want to play a pickup game, and it's 3v3. That's still hockey.

 

Sure, but so do "mercy rules" and "do overs" and games that end with "I'm tired" - but the problem is that we're not watching kids play on a pond, we're watching a game with rules that exist one way for 60 minutes and then are significantly different for five minutes just so we can determine a "winner."

 

That means that the "game winning goal" scored at 5-on-5 against a stifling defense and prepared goalie is worth the same, in the end, as the 3-on-3, pond hockey, no defense goal. That means the two points earned during a tense 60 minutes of hockey between two great teams are worth the same as the two points "earned" by a one line team in a 3-on-3, pond hockey, no-defense "overtime."

 

There's a reason that they didn't count shootout "goals" in the stats.

 

That said, why bother to have 5-on-5 at all? Why not just play 3-on-3 all game? Audiences like scoring. Why not have this be the National Baskethockey League? It'll be really exciting with players just flying up and down the ice peppering goalies with shots and racking up huge numbers of points.

 

Moreover, people find "icing" confusing and that makes them sad - why bother with it at all? Let's just let the players cherry pick if they want to. It'll be more exciting with more goals scored and a winner!

 

It's hard to develop defensemen - so let's not bother with it at all. Let's just have all offense, all the time.

 

Or - is that not the "hockey" that we've been watching for 47 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but so do "mercy rules" and "do overs" and games that end with "I'm tired" - but the problem is that we're not watching kids play on a pond, we're watching a game with rules that exist one way for 60 minutes and then are significantly different for five minutes just so we can determine a "winner."

 

That means that the "game winning goal" scored at 5-on-5 against a stifling defense and prepared goalie is worth the same, in the end, as the 3-on-3, pond hockey, no defense goal. That means the two points earned during a tense 60 minutes of hockey between two great teams are worth the same as the two points "earned" by a one line team in a 3-on-3, pond hockey, no-defense "overtime."

 

There's a reason that they didn't count shootout "goals" in the stats.

 

That said, why bother to have 5-on-5 at all? Why not just play 3-on-3 all game? Audiences like scoring. Why not have this be the National Baskethockey League? It'll be really exciting with players just flying up and down the ice peppering goalies with shots and racking up huge numbers of points.

 

Moreover, people find "icing" confusing and that makes them sad - why bother with it at all? Let's just let the players cherry pick if they want to. It'll be more exciting with more goals scored and a winner!

 

It's hard to develop defensemen - so let's not bother with it at all. Let's just have all offense, all the time.

 

Or - is that not the "hockey" that we've been watching for 47 years?

 

I get these things confused.  Was that irony or sarcasm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, it's better than previous alternatives.

 

I don't hate the shootout but I do hate the point system of the NHL which should emulate Soccer more with 1 point for overtimes and 3 points for a win in reg and 2 points for OT/shootout winners. to actually separate teams that win games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


My biggest problem with the SO was how contrived it was. They weren't playing hockey anymore. I didn't like guys not playing hockey determining the outcome of a hockey game.

 

Penalty shots are every bit as much "playing hockey" as 3 on 3. You know what's not "playing hockey"? Playing 3 on 3 and one team commits a penalty, and then giving the other team an extra skater. Giving a team an extra skater is something that cannot happen in a normal hockey game. Penalty shots can happen. 3 on 3 can happen. OT 3 on 3 is every bit as gimmicky as penalty shots. It's just a different kind of gimmick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penalty shots are every bit as much "playing hockey" as 3 on 3. You know what's not "playing hockey"? Playing 3 on 3 and one team commits a penalty, and then giving the other team an extra skater. Giving a team an extra skater is something that cannot happen in a normal hockey game. Penalty shots can happen. 3 on 3 can happen. OT 3 on 3 is every bit as gimmicky as penalty shots. It's just a different kind of gimmick.

A sequence of players from opposing teams taking penalty shots back to back--even just two back-to-back--when exactly does that happen in hockey? You ar changing both WHEN those happen and how.

3v3 happens. Rare, but it happens. With 3v3, you are only changing the when, not the how, other than going 4v3 on the PP, which--you HAVE TO admit is better than 3v2.

And as far as contrivance goes, show a 3-minute segment of 3v3 hockey and then show a shootout and ask 100 people which looks more like a hockey game. Please don't offer to bet me money that more people would say the shootout looks more like hockey, because that would be like taking candy from a baby for me.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying there is NO contrivance with 3v3, just less than there is with a SO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just to be clear, I'm not saying there is NO contrivance with 3v3, just less than there is with a SO.

 

And they're still going to give away a point for winning a shootout if there is no winner 3v3.

 

It's not like they said "it'll be 3v3 until someone scores" - it's 3v3 until they get to a shootout.

 

And I honestly can't remember any time in my watching of hockey that I've ever seen a 3-on-3 during regular play in the NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they're still going to give away a point for winning a shootout if there is no winner 3v3.

 

It's not like they said "it'll be 3v3 until someone scores" - it's 3v3 until they get to a shootout.

 

And I honestly can't remember any time in my watching of hockey that I've ever seen a 3-on-3 during regular play in the NHL.

Back before Gretzky came into the league it happened.  Just not too often.  But the Gretzky rule stopped it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just to be clear, I'm not saying there is NO contrivance with 3v3, just less than there is with a SO.

 

Well, my feeling is that both are 100% contrived. Because in fact, they are. League mandated, contrived attempts to avoid ties. I don't really care which is better because I would prefer a tie to either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, my feeling is that both are 100% contrived. Because in fact, they are. League mandated, contrived attempts to avoid ties. I don't really care which is better because I would prefer a tie to either.

Make NO mistake the league put in the shootout to attract fans in non traditional markets!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make NO mistake the league put in the shootout to attract fans in non traditional markets!

No, they put it in to attract more fans, PERIOD! They don't care where they come from, at least not much.

At the time, they had a serious problem where ESPN dropped their contract and we were stuck w/ Vs. Why? Because reruns of the World Series of Poker were getting higher ratings than live hockey games were. THAT'S a problem. If your game can't even draw more people than a poker game that people have seen 3 times before, you have a SERIOUS problem with your product.

That's where the money is. Yes, it's better than it was with the NBCSN/NBC deal, but not much. If we want the game to grow--and I don't mean having more teams in cities that don't make sense, I mean having more fans PERIOD--you've got to put forth a product that people are attracted to. People DON'T LIKE TIES! That's why the "kissing your sister" phrase applies. I didn't make that up.

I want our game to thrive. It needs more fans. I want to preserve as much of the pure game as I can and still have a chance at getting a real TV contract so I can watch games. I am in a non-hockey market, so it matters to me. Atlanta will never again have another NHL franchise--at least in my lifetime--but the NHL still needs the fans who are here to be able to watch games. And not just Atlanta.

Hockey "purists" want to go back to ties, but we've gotta friggin learn from past failures and learn to be a little adaptable. Otherwise the product becomes unavailable to the masses, which is the beginning of the end, maybe even the middle of it.

For example, though I love fighting in hockey and think it is a part of the game that should NEVER be taken out, I am very thankful that the NHL has been as proactive on the concussion front as they have been. WAY more than the NFL. A reckoning is coming for football, because they ignored it, and even as big as the NFL is, it could be crushed by the legal ramifications of what is coming.

I want NHL hockey to survive, and so I like the new rules parted ting the head, and for the same reason--although from a different angle--I like 3v3 vs. ties. In the long run, it's better for the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they put it in to attract more fans, PERIOD! They don't care where they come from, at least not much.

At the time, they had a serious problem where ESPN dropped their contract and we were stuck w/ Vs. Why? Because reruns of the World Series of Poker were getting higher ratings than live hockey games were. THAT'S a problem. If your game can't even draw more people than a poker game that people have seen 3 times before, you have a SERIOUS problem with your product.

That's where the money is. Yes, it's better than it was with the NBCSN/NBC deal, but not much. If we want the game to grow--and I don't mean having more teams in cities that don't make sense, I mean having more fans PERIOD--you've got to put forth a product that people are attracted to. People DON'T LIKE TIES! That's why the "kissing your sister" phrase applies. I didn't make that up.

I want our game to thrive. It needs more fans. I want to preserve as much of the pure game as I can and still have a chance at getting a real TV contract so I can watch games. I am in a non-hockey market, so it matters to me. Atlanta will never again have another NHL franchise--at least in my lifetime--but the NHL still needs the fans who are here to be able to watch games. And not just Atlanta.

Hockey "purists" want to go back to ties, but we've gotta friggin learn from past failures and learn to be a little adaptable. Otherwise the product becomes unavailable to the masses, which is the beginning of the end, maybe even the middle of it.

For example, though I love fighting in hockey and think it is a part of the game that should NEVER be taken out, I am very thankful that the NHL has been as proactive on the concussion front as they have been. WAY more than the NFL. A reckoning is coming for football, because they ignored it, and even as big as the NFL is, it could be crushed by the legal ramifications of what is coming.

I want NHL hockey to survive, and so I like the new rules parted ting the head, and for the same reason--although from a different angle--I like 3v3 vs. ties. In the long run, it's better for the game.

The 7 or 8 teams supporting the league in revenue generating don't need ANY gimmicks to continue to be the big revenue generator! We are NOT talking about an NFL type revenue TV money.

ESPN wanted nothing to do with promoting the NHL. They wanted OUT badly!!! They wanted the NBA. So of course they didn't want it to succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 7 or 8 teams supporting the league in revenue generating don't need ANY gimmicks to continue to be the big revenue generator! We are NOT talking about an NFL type revenue TV money.

ESPN wanted nothing to do with promoting the NHL. They wanted OUT badly!!! They wanted the NBA. So of course they didn't want it to succeed.

Hate to say it, but that is a recipe for TV purgatory. ESPN doesn't hate hockey. ESPN hates programming that doesn't bring in revenue! The didn't want the NBA because they like basketball better than hockey. They like it better because it brings in WAY more viewers than NHL hockey does, and that brings in way more money. They will air whatever will attract viewers. If it's scantily clad chicks playing football that attracts viewers, you will see it on their network. The same is true on ALL of the networks.

I noticed you didn't touch the poker thing, but that was the REALITY. Forget competing with the NBA or NFL--we have no chance! But if we can't compete with poker reruns--even re-playing for the FIFTH time!--and that STILL gets better ratings on the biggest sports network in the US than a live hockey game does, then there is a problem with your product. THAT'S why they made the changes.

I see both sides of this. I am a HUGE fan of an original six franchise, and I grew up in that city. So I know that side of it. I now live in Atlanta, which has had an NHL team twice, and lost it both times. I am NOT arguing that Atlanta should have a team. They should NOT. But you are arguing that the NHL doesn't need to attract fans from here, and that's just idiocy! They need every fan they can get.

A major sport that ends up relying on pay-per-view as the primary way of seeing games is NOT a major sport any more, and that's where it is headed if you rely only on the 7 established markets.

Don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes I see hockey "purists" like I see soccer purists who were haranguing the use of tach ology to confirm that balls had completely crossed the goal lines. Their argument? "Mistakes like those missed calls are a part of the mystique of the game." HOGWASH!

The same is true of the kissing of the sister ties. The STRONGEST argument that you have for them is that's they way we've always done it. That is the rally cry of thousands of failing businesses. I want the NHL to succeed. To do that, it needs to adapt SOME. IT WOULDN'T NEED TO if the product as it was could compete in the marketplace. But if you're losing to poker reruns, it's time to rethink things, and that's what they did.

I think 3v3 is a better form of rethinking than the SO was/is. Period. And I also think that it SHOULD make hockey purists happier than the SO did, but I know that many of them will never be happy unless it's just like it was, so there is no point in trying to convince them. Just like there is no point in marketing to Detroit hockey fans. THEY ARE ALREADY FANS, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. But Atlanta fans will go away if they can't watch games, and so will fans from just about anywhere else that isn't a major hockey market, and the NHL needs those fans.

It's not just all about us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to say it, but that is a recipe for TV purgatory. ESPN doesn't hate hockey. ESPN hates programming that doesn't bring in revenue! The didn't want the NBA because they like basketball better than hockey. They like it better because it brings in WAY more viewers than NHL hockey does, and that brings in way more money. They will air whatever will attract viewers. If it's scantily clad chicks playing football that attracts viewers, you will see it on their network. The same is true on ALL of the networks.

I noticed you didn't touch the poker thing, but that was the REALITY. Forget competing with the NBA or NFL--we have no chance! But if we can't compete with poker reruns--even re-playing for the FIFTH time!--and that STILL gets better ratings on the biggest sports network in the US than a live hockey game does, then there is a problem with your product. THAT'S why they made the changes.

I see both sides of this. I am a HUGE fan of an original six franchise, and I grew up in that city. So I know that side of it. I now live in Atlanta, which has had an NHL team twice, and lost it both times. I am NOT arguing that Atlanta should have a team. They should NOT. But you are arguing that the NHL doesn't need to attract fans from here, and that's just idiocy! They need every fan they can get.

A major sport that ends up relying on pay-per-view as the primary way of seeing games is NOT a major sport any more, and that's where it is headed if you rely only on the 7 established markets.

Don't take this the wrong way, but sometimes I see hockey "purists" like I see soccer purists who were haranguing the use of tach ology to confirm that balls had completely crossed the goal lines. Their argument? "Mistakes like those missed calls are a part of the mystique of the game." HOGWASH!

The same is true of the kissing of the sister ties. The STRONGEST argument that you have for them is that's they way we've always done it. That is the rally cry of thousands of failing businesses. I want the NHL to succeed. To do that, it needs to adapt SOME. IT WOULDN'T NEED TO if the product as it was could compete in the marketplace. But if you're losing to poker reruns, it's time to rethink things, and that's what they did.

I think 3v3 is a better form of rethinking than the SO was/is. Period. And I also think that it SHOULD make hockey purists happier than the SO did, but I know that many of them will never be happy unless it's just like it was, so there is no point in trying to convince them. Just like there is no point in marketing to Detroit hockey fans. THEY ARE ALREADY FANS, and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. But Atlanta fans will go away if they can't watch games, and so will fans from just about anywhere else that isn't a major hockey market, and the NHL needs those fans.

It's not just all about us.

I'm on my phone right now. I'll answer in detail tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...