3 on 3 OT? Like it or not?

[ruxpin]

If they aren't going to have ties, get rid of the damn points. Really, such a set up will never be taken seriously by the average sports fan in the states.

Go to three columns like every other sport: W-L-PCT (add GB if you want to). You get something for winning, you get nothing for losing.

I think 3v3 for five minutes will probably do the trick in most instances, but if not, go to ten minutes and snuff out the shootout altogether.

I don't care when you lose the game. You lost. You get nothing. Go home and sit down and shut up.

You want to attract the American television audience, figure out that we're not European and soccer sucks. So stop with the silly standings. I know it's always been that way, but it's always been stupid. It had slight more sense with ties, but now it's just absurd.

[NRH]

America watches world cup soccer more than they do the Stanley Cup hockey, stop hating a sport simply because your country sucks at it. Even then they only perform shootouts during elimination stages after two additional Overtimes.

 

Soccer doesn't reward their teams for losing, only Hockey, a Canadian sport does that.

 

Their scoring is very simple, 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss

 

Bottom 3 teams are regulated to the lower division, top 3 of the lower division are promoted up. Only the officiating body can prevent regulation via a vote.

 

Only America's system of "hey i know you were the best team out of those 164 games, but this wildcard team is going to be better than you after all that and be crowned the best instead" and that's by far the most asinine method to crown a champion in the terms of "always has, always stupid"

 

Like all American sports, Hockey found a way to attract fans, with the typical and shitty, Sudden Death overtimes and even the loser is a winner because he tried really hard gimmicks they keep introducing.

 

Just add another full length period, if the score is still tied the teams are tied, no sudden death, no shootout, no pond hockey antics.

 

It's also painfully stupid that a better team can miss the playoffs simply because they are in the stronger division but "always has, Always stupid"

[Old School Hockey]

America watches world cup soccer more than they do the Stanley Cup hockey, stop hating a sport simply because your country sucks at it. Even then they only perform shootouts during elimination stages after two additional Overtimes.

 

Soccer doesn't reward their teams for losing, only Hockey, a Canadian sport does that.

 

Their scoring is very simple, 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss

 

Bottom 3 teams are regulated to the lower division, top 3 of the lower division are promoted up. Only the officiating body can prevent regulation via a vote.

 

Only America's system of "hey i know you were the best team out of those 164 games, but this wildcard team is going to be better than you after all that and be crowned the best instead" and that's by far the most asinine method to crown a champion in the terms of "always has, always stupid"

 

Like all American sports, Hockey found a way to attract fans, with the typical and shitty, Sudden Death overtimes and even the loser is a winner because he tried really hard gimmicks they keep introducing.

 

Just add another full length period, if the score is still tied the teams are tied, no sudden death, no shootout, no pond hockey antics.

 

It's also painfully stupid that a better team can miss the playoffs simply because they are in the stronger division but "always has, Always stupid"

Lol

Where is the home of the first professional hockey team? Hint hint hint it ain't in Canada!

[NRH]

Lol

Where is the home of the first professional hockey team? Hint hint hint it ain't in Canada!

I bet they went undefeated until they made a second hockey team to play them.

Any other irrelevant trivia?

[Old School Hockey]

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.

Ok.

 

First as soon as ESPN got into hockey they wanted out and did a HORRIBLE job promoting hockey.  They wanted the NBA PERIOD.

 

No matter the gimmick hockey will always be at best the number 4 sport in the US.  The brain trust of the NHL has done a horrible job placing teams. 

 

Atlanta?  Horrible sports town.  The Braves and all of their success struggle to attract crowds.

Ana, LA and San Jose?  Really 3 teams in the same market?

Columbus?  OSU will never allow $1 to leave its revenue stream to head towards the CBJ's.  Too many other team close by.

Nashville?  Heck their owner had to buy his own tickets to meet revenue sharing windows.

Florida?  Why 2 teams in Fl?

Arizona?  Gary has done so much damage to the league by allowing that team to stay where it is.

Dallas?  Just a horrible hockey sports town.

Carolina?  Great job putting a team right in the middle of 3 major college markets.

 

So back to the shootoout.  It was put in place (IMO) to attract fans in bad markets.  Detroit, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Boston, Chicago (now after the tank), NYR and Philly do not need gimmicks to generate revenue.

 

You can sugar coat it all you want but 6-7 team ARE the main revenue stream for the NHL.  Why do you think it took so long for the NHL to move Detroit back to the East?  Revenue generation!!!!

 

The shootout and the stupid point system (loser points) is a crutch to prop up the teams that can't make it without a crutch.

[NRH]

Please feel free to continue with your ignorance!!!

Like the ignorance of stating the origin of the first hockey team?

Did Vancouver review all their scoring plays as the first and only pro team?

Any more irrelevant opinions that are factually correct but incovniveably asinine argumentive stances?

Next you'll tell me it's super important that the first baseball player that hit a home run should determine the minimum stadium size for modern day baseball.

[Old School Hockey]

Like the ignorance of stating the origin of the first hockey team?

Did Vancouver review all their scoring plays as the first and only pro team?

Any more irrelevant opinions that are factually correct but incovniveably asinine argumentive stances?

Next you'll tell me it's super important that the first baseball player that hit a home run should determine the minimum stadium size for modern day baseball.

Say it isn't so?  More than one team?????

 

The Western Pennsylvania Hockey League began hiring professional players in 1902 and acted as a pro–am league. This league joined with teams in Michigan and Ontario to form the International Professional Hockey League in 1904, with Houghton, Michigan dentist Jack Gibson its founder.

[NRH]

Say it isn't so? More than one team?????

The Western Pennsylvania Hockey League began hiring professional players in 1902 and acted as a pro–am league. This league joined with teams in Michigan and Ontario to form the International Professional Hockey League in 1904, with Houghton, Michigan dentist Jack Gibson its founder.

Sweet how many of them played in the NHL? You keep adding a lot of pointless information in a topic about the NHL and its methods.

I'm sure we should go back to play 1902 hockey, that sounds like a superb idea, especially the pay standards.

[Old School Hockey]

Sweet how many of them played in the NHL? You keep adding a lot of pointless information in a topic about the NHL and its methods.

I'm sure we should go back to play 1902 hockey, that sounds like a superb idea, especially the pay standards.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

You do realize the NHl has NOT been around for ever?

 

And you keep pretending that Canada is the golden standard for hockey.  Funny the O6 had only 2 teams from Canada and 4 from the US.

[NRH]

Ignorance is bliss.

You do realize the NHl has NOT been around for ever?

And you keep pretending that Canada is the golden standard for hockey. Funny the O6 had only 2 teams from Canada and 4 from the US.

Once again, what's that have to do with th NHL? You know, the organization in question?

Are you playing dumb on purpose? I highly doubt the Officals in Vancouver care about any number of teams in the O6 or that their oegnazition wasn't around in 100 years ago not sure why you think that's relevant to 2015 hockey and 3 on 3 OTs and shootouts or the current NHL scoring system.

You are calling it ignorance but no sport really bases their decisions on what a "professional" team or organization did 100 years earlier. Why? Because doing it like that was stupid and draconian and they learned a better way.

The only ignorance here is you trying to validate something via a pro team not in the NHL as a reason for not doing something the way the current governeing body is doing it.

It's all really comical.

[Old School Hockey]

Once again, what's that have to do with th NHL? You know, the organization in question?

Are you playing dumb on purpose? I highly doubt the Officals in Vancouver care about any number of teams in the O6 or that their oegnazition wasn't around in 100 years ago not sure why you think that's relevant to 2015 hockey and 3 on 3 OTs and shootouts or the current NHL scoring system.

You are calling it ignorance but no sport really bases their decisions on what a "professional" team or organization did 100 years earlier. Why? Because doing it like that was stupid and draconian and they learned a better way.

This funny!  A guy from Delaware who is  telling me history about Canadian hockey. 

 

When people go to Detroit, Chicago, NYR, Boston and other US teams are the patrons spending US dollars or Canadian dollars?  Let see how great teams outside of Toronto and Montreal do once the Canadian dollar tanks again.

 

Ignroing the NHL isn't NHL without the teams in the US is VERY short sighted.  But you know that right Mr. Delaware?

[NRH]

This funny! A guy from Delaware who is  telling me history about Canadian hockey.

When people go to Detroit, Chicago, NYR, Boston and other US teams are the patrons spending US dollars or Canadian dollars? Let see how great teams outside of Toronto and Montreal do once the Canadian dollar tanks again.

Ignroing the NHL isn't NHL without the teams in the US is VERY short sighted. But you know that right Mr. Delaware?

I'm not from Delaware, I'm in delaware

More irrelevant information? Are you trying to straw man through an argument because you've lost? Why is my age important? Are you implying I can't watch older hockey games? Are you implying that being super old and dying sooner than someone younger than you warrants some unseeable information that simply can't be granted to younger people?

Because if that is the case maybe we can discuss why your generation ruined the economy and expect the youth you failed to prepare for your collasall oversight and continued refusal to fix it is really a burden on the future and shouldn't ever be allowed to actually make decisions dictating anything.

But that's more strawman tactics and has nothing to do with the NHL in 2015 which you keep failing to address in the conversation at hand. Once you can actually establish an on topic argument addressing 3 on 3 overtime and its subsequent shootout policy or it's point system without trying to comment on irrelevant factors like a persons age or location in terms of a Organization which wasn't around when you keep plugging your fun facts of trivia (which you weren't alive to see either lol) then maybe you'll actually provide some insightful points that would actually garner some respect.

Otherwise you're just some old time hockey guy that keeps googling and profile digging to try and distract from being so clueless that this is his only real avenue of Internet conversation. You're literally in it to be wrong.

[ruxpin]

Points are stupid. I don't care how many people watch the corrupt world cup.

Let's face it, regardless of gimmicks, it's a lot easier for kids to play soccer and baseball and basketball (and even football to a lesser extent) than hockey in most of the US.

So the sports are more ingrained and translate to better ratings.

I've been a fan of hockey for over 40 years (this is NOT intended to give me any street cred on this subject), and while "it's always been this way," I've always thought the point system is weird. And I don't like the soccer system. Neither the top three /bottom three or the points.

I have no problem with divisions. In world Cup you play in. You can't do that with an annual pro league. And ranking 1-30 would kill revenue and TV in multiple ways.

But I get the frustration with a team with better record in division X golfing while a lesser team from division Y plays on.

By the way, I agree with and enjoyed the baseball wild card comment. We both know that's television revenue driven rather than anything sports related. I dislike it, too.

Like I said, the points in hockey made sense to me with ties. But if we've eliminated these with shootouts and 3v3 and a nice game of Jacks, then just go to PCT and be done with it. For those who need it (and can't tell which three digit number is higher) the GB column makes things easy.

Lastly, ANA/LA/SJ are not the same market (ANA/LA are, but SJ is not).

[Old School Hockey]

I'm not from Delaware, I'm in delaware

More irrelevant information? Are you trying to straw man through an argument because you've lost? Why is my age important? Are you implying I can't watch older hockey games? Are you implying that being super old and dying sooner than someone younger than you warrants some unseeable information that simply can't be granted to younger people?

Because if that is the case maybe we can discuss why your generation ruined the economy and expect the youth you failed to prepare for your collasall oversight and continued refusal to fix it is really a burden on the future and shouldn't ever be allowed to actually make decisions dictating anything.

But that's more strawman tactics and has nothing to do with the NHL in 2015 which you keep failing to address in the conversation at hand. Once you can actually establish an on topic argument addressing 3 on 3 overtime and its subsequent shootout policy or it's point system without trying to comment on irrelevant factors like a persons age or location in terms of a Organization which wasn't around when you keep plugging your fun facts of trivia (which you weren't alive to see either lol) then maybe you'll actually provide some insightful points that would actually garner some respect.

Otherwise you're just some old time hockey guy that keeps googling and profile digging to try and distract from being so clueless that this is his only real avenue of Internet conversation. You're literally in it to be wrong.

Got to love the name calling?  How about a debate without the name calling?  Nah!!!!!!

 

Contrary to your beliefs Canada is not the savior of the NHL!  Do I believe the gimmicks are in place to attract fans in bad markets?  100%.  But I'm also smart enough to know the NHL would not survive with only teams in Canada. 

 

I've always been against the SO and always will be.

[NRH]

Got to love the name calling? How about a debate without the name calling? Nah!!!!!!

Contrary to your beliefs Canada is not the savior of the NHL! Do I believe the gimmicks are in place to attract fans in bad markets? 100%. But I'm also smart enough to know the NHL would not survive with only teams in Canada.

I've always been against the SO and always will be.

This is about 3 on 3 hockey, you're one name calling and saying arbitrary and inane ****.

Nobody said Canadian is the savior of the sport but that has nothing to do with how much control they have on the sport and it's far more control than some league team in 1902.

[Old School Hockey]

Points are stupid. I don't care how many people watch the corrupt world cup.

Let's face it, regardless of gimmicks, it's a lot easier for kids to play soccer and baseball and basketball (and even football to a lesser extent) than hockey in most of the US.

So the sports are more ingrained and translate to better ratings.

I've been a fan of hockey for over 40 years (this is NOT intended to give me any street cred on this subject), and while "it's always been this way," I've always thought the point system is weird. And I don't like the soccer system. Neither the top three /bottom three or the points.

I have no problem with divisions. In world Cup you play in. You can't do that with an annual pro league. And ranking 1-30 would kill revenue and TV in multiple ways.

But I get the frustration with a team with better record in division X golfing while a lesser team from division Y plays on.

By the way, I agree with and enjoyed the baseball wild card comment. We both know that's television revenue driven rather than anything sports related. I dislike it, too.

Like I said, the points in hockey made sense to me with ties. But if we've eliminated these with shootouts and 3v3 and a nice game of Jacks, then just go to PCT and be done with it. For those who need it (and can't tell which three digit number is higher) the GB column makes things easy.

Lastly, ANA/LA/SJ are not the same market (ANA/LA are, but SJ is not).

Good point on San Jose.

 

I've been saying for years!!!!!!  If the NHL is now hell bent on winner every night, why not eliminate the point system and just go with W-L?  Why won't they do that?  False parity!

[Old School Hockey]

This is about 3 on 3 hockey, you're one name calling and saying arbitrary and inane ****.

Nobody said Canadian is the savior of the sport but that has nothing to do with how much control they have on the sport and it's far more control than some league team in 1902.

LOL

 

I guess you forgot what you posted?  "Hockey, a Canadian sport"

[NRH]

Points are stupid. I don't care how many people watch the corrupt world cup.

Let's face it, regardless of gimmicks, it's a lot easier for kids to play soccer and baseball and basketball (and even football to a lesser extent) than hockey in most of the US.

So the sports are more ingrained and translate to better ratings.

I've been a fan of hockey for over 40 years (this is NOT intended to give me any street cred on this subject), and while "it's always been this way," I've always thought the point system is weird. And I don't like the soccer system. Neither the top three /bottom three or the points.

I have no problem with divisions. In world Cup you play in. You can't do that with an annual pro league. And ranking 1-30 would kill revenue and TV in multiple ways.

But I get the frustration with a team with better record in division X golfing while a lesser team from division Y plays on.

By the way, I agree with and enjoyed the baseball wild card comment. We both know that's television revenue driven rather than anything sports related. I dislike it, too.

Like I said, the points in hockey made sense to me with ties. But if we've eliminated these with shootouts and 3v3 and a nice game of Jacks, then just go to PCT and be done with it. For those who need it (and can't tell which three digit number is higher) the GB column makes things easy.

Lastly, ANA/LA/SJ are not the same market (ANA/LA are, but SJ is not).

Oh it's easy enough to base the games on record alone, points only make sense in games like soccer because there are no divisions.

The NHL has only half adopted a system and then contorted it to some strange hybrid.

82 overtime games is 82 points, if you win 30% of those games you're over 100 points, you can literally have a losing record and make the playoffs in this system.

Hockey division tiebreaks would be much easier solved like you've mentioned either with Games behind, overall record or goal differential.

[ruxpin]

Good point on San Jose.

I've been saying for years!!!!!! If the NHL is now hell bent on winner every night, why not eliminate the point system and just go with W-L? Why won't they do that? False parity!

I think you're dead on accurate with the reason (false parity). It keeps fans of loser teams (like philly, currently) watching longer than they otherwise might. In theory, anyway.

Yeah, I like the W-L-PCT idea but have had that shot down multiple times on this board alone. I guess it's the "is always been done this way" thing.

[NRH]

LOL

I guess you forgot what you posted? "Hockey, a Canadian sport"

Ok, Hockey, a European sport brought to America.

The contemporary sport of ice hockey was developed in Canada, most notably in Montreal, where the first indoor hockey game was played on March 3, 1875.

But whatever, American sport ayeeeeeee

[NRH]

I think you're dead on accurate with the reason (false parity). It keeps fans of loser teams (like philly, currently) watching longer than they otherwise might. In theory, anyway.

Yeah, I like the W-L-PCT idea but have had that shot down multiple times on this board alone. I guess it's the "is always been done this way" thing.

Well, most people hate ties, they're boring to most causal fans, not everyone appreciates gritty defense along the boards or aggressive forechecking the same way you would.

I'm not sure why they didn't just adopt a full overtime period followed by smaller periods of progressively less people on the ice. It's all sudden death anyways.

[ruxpin]

@NRH

The NHL has only half adopted a system and then contorted it to some strange hybrid.

Completely agree.

It seems like all of us in this discussion have been around it awhile and so can follow the point thing, but I've always thought that must be confusing to fans of other sports trying to cross over. I don't think it's THAT hard, so I'm not trying to overblow it, but I do think it's a bit more complicated than "team X with 35 wins is higher than team Y with 34 wins."

[Old School Hockey]

Well, most people hate ties, they're boring to most causal fans, not everyone appreciates gritty defense along the boards or aggressive forechecking the same way you would.

I'm not sure why they didn't just adopt a full overtime period followed by smaller periods of progressively less people on the ice. It's all sudden death anyways.

Hey!  When ties were part of the game, guess what?  We didn't stop going to the games, we didn't stop watching them on TV, we didn't do anything different.

[NRH]

Hey! When ties were part of the game, guess what? We didn't stop going to the games, we didn't stop watching them on TV, we didn't do anything different.

Actually your revenues went up when you eliminated ties and introduced shootouts.

But with all statistics correlation does not imply causation

It's certainly geared towards catering to keep the casual fan interested.

[Old School Hockey]

Actually your revenues went up when you eliminated ties and introduced shootouts.

But with all statistics correlation does not imply causation

It's certainly geared towards catering to keep the casual fan interested.

So what you're saying is people go to games to see a SO?  That seem a bit odd?  Why don't they all just wait until the 3rd period and get in for half price?