New OT rules

[SolidSnake]

4 on 4, then 3 on 3 I guess because Ken Holland from the living Gods Red Wings suggested it that it should happen. I'd rather keep the shootout or go back to ties again. Because where do you stop? then 2 on 2? 1 on 1? goalie vs goalie?

[columbia]

Letang would shine in 3 vs. 3, so that would be a plus.

[Big Easy Pens Fan]

When does this go into effect?

BEPF

[no name]

This is in the discussion stage, there might not be a change. The idea is to many games are ending in a shootouts. they would prefer to see the game end on a goal. I would like to see the games end on a clock goal than a shootout. Those are more points players can accumulate.

Since hockey is broken into 3 - 20 minute periods I would have OT be a 1/3 of a period (6:20) of 3 on 3, all penalties are penalty shots. If that doesn't force the game to end on a goal I don't know what will.

The 4 on 4 play is done in regulation at times so OT should be something we hardly see 3 on 3 IMO.

Also they talked about the future of fighting in the game. Seems like owners and players are OK with where it is now. Fighting will go down over the years with the new visor rules. Now all players will ear them less goons will make it to the NHL, plus you can't take off your helmet to fight this will cut down on the number of fights. Seems like no one like the staged fights 2 goons just fighting to fight.

[shmenguin]

Well the red wings had the pull to completely ruin the division alignment. I'm excited at the possibility that they could do some good with that power. Bring on the 3v3

[no name]

Well the red wings had the pull to completely ruin the division alignment. I'm excited at the possibility that they could do some good with that power. Bring on the 3v3

Yeah that is some pull Detroit must have to demand they move to the east when, clearly they belong in the west. Wait til expansion and the league is forced to realign again. You will see if Detroits weight can keep them in the east. Qubeac, Hammilton a second Toronto team could all steal Detriots spot. Of course they will move Colombus befor Detroit.

[Idoit40fans]

Detroit isnt going back west any time soon.

[mikey287]

Detroit isnt going back west any time soon.

Nor should they, really.

[Kovy27]

Well the red wings had the pull to completely ruin the division alignment. I'm excited at the possibility that they could do some good with that power. Bring on the 3v3

Yeah that is some pull Detroit must have to demand they move to the east when, clearly they belong in the west. Wait til expansion and the league is forced to realign again. You will see if Detroits weight can keep them in the east. Qubeac, Hammilton a second Toronto team could all steal Detriots spot. Of course they will move Colombus befor Detroit.

Dertiot will stay in the Esat becauze the NHL will expannd to Seettle and Kansass Sitty.

[shmenguin]

Well the red wings had the pull to completely ruin the division alignment. I'm excited at the possibility that they could do some good with that power. Bring on the 3v3

Yeah that is some pull Detroit must have to demand they move to the east when, clearly they belong in the west. Wait til expansion and the league is forced to realign again. You will see if Detroits weight can keep them in the east. Qubeac, Hammilton a second Toronto team could all steal Detriots spot. Of course they will move Colombus befor Detroit.

Dertiot will stay in the Esat becauze the NHL will expannd to Seettle and Kansass Sitty.

For such a short sentence, there sure are a lot of terrible things crammed in there.

[no name]

Seattle and Quebec will get expansion teams. KC will most likely get a relocating franchise. Florida most likely will move to KC if they get a bid. But i agree the central division could use another team in KC to fit the time zone scheme the league has going on.

Actually you might be right after thinking about it. As to not influx more teams in the east it might be easier to just have Florida move to Quebec and expand to KC. Good thinking.

As far as the subject matter of OT, i never did like the shootouts. Get rid of them totally.
Both teams get a point for going into OT. 6:20 of 3 on 3 (all penalties are penalty shots) if its still tied, it ends in a tie.

[Kovy27]

Seattle and Quebec will get expansion teams. KC will most likely get a relocating franchise. Florida most likely will move to KC if they get a bid. But i agree the central division could use another team in KC to fit the time zone scheme the league has going on.

I could see Fla moving to Que or KC. I would think for logistic reasons, they would rather move Fla to Que but I guess it doesn't really matter.

[Kovy27]

Well the red wings had the pull to completely ruin the division alignment. I'm excited at the possibility that they could do some good with that power. Bring on the 3v3

Yeah that is some pull Detroit must have to demand they move to the east when, clearly they belong in the west. Wait til expansion and the league is forced to realign again. You will see if Detroits weight can keep them in the east. Qubeac, Hammilton a second Toronto team could all steal Detriots spot. Of course they will move Colombus befor Detroit.

Dertiot will stay in the Esat becauze the NHL will expannd to Seettle and Kansass Sitty.

For such a short sentence, there sure are a lot of terrible things crammed in there.

I was being a smart arse.

[shoeshine boy]

nothing really new about this concept. one of the major youth tourneys, SilverSticks does this. their entire format is 4 on 4 for 4 minutes, 3 on 3 for 3 minutes, 2 on 2 for 2 minutes, 1 on 1 for 1 minute. to my knowledge they've never actually made it to the 1 on 1.
the local Over35 league used to do 3 on 3 for 3 minutes and it used to yield a winner 85% of the time but then guys started getting too conservative.

[the wicked child]

I don't like it. Especially if it is in lieu of a shootout. I guess if they still go to a SO after the 3 on 3 I wouldn't hate it, but it seems just a gimmicky, if not more so than a SO to me for some reason. I also feel like once teams adjust to it, we wouldn't necessarily see the increase in OT wins that I'm assuming it is trying to encourage.

[Jim]

I would vote for no OT at all. 1 point for a win, 0 for loss or tie. That would make the end of games exciting. Instead of people going into "prevent" to try to get the tie point, you go all out to win or you get NOTHING.

[MarioLives]

Imagine how many goals OV will score if they extend OT and/or go to 3 on 3??

Plus maybe Geno will score again if that happens.....

I kid.....

[largegarlic]

I don't like it. Especially if it is in lieu of a shootout. I guess if they still go to a SO after the 3 on 3 I wouldn't hate it, but it seems just a gimmicky, if not more so than a SO to me for some reason. I also feel like once teams adjust to it, we wouldn't necessarily see the increase in OT wins that I'm assuming it is trying to encourage.

This is pretty much what I think. I don't see 3 v 3 as being any less gimmicky. I have no problem with teams playing 4 v 4 for 5 minutes and then ending in a tie if no one scores, but I'm a soccer fan, so what do I know?

[DudeMan2766]

I'm really over the shootout, and that's coming from someone who always liked them. I've always thought tho it would seem way less anticlimactic if they at least went to 5 shooters - but maybe that's just me being so used to them in the E. At this point I'd take ties over 3 shot shootouts, but I wouldn't hate 10 min of 4v4 then a SO. Think you'd have WAY less shootouts, but I'm sure everyone would have all sorts of problems with extending OT another 5.

[shafnutz05]

I would vote for no OT at all. 1 point for a win, 0 for loss or tie. That would make the end of games exciting. Instead of people going into "prevent" to try to get the tie point, you go all out to win or you get NOTHING.

I understand wanting teams to compete, but that is absurd. So two teams go to a 4-4 tie at the end of regulation and it counts as a loss for both teams?

[Pitt87]

Letang would shine from his new wing position in 3 vs. 3, so that would be a plus.

FYP

[no name]

I say go straight to 3 on 3 a team pretty much has to decide a winner then. The shootout is to common place now, at first i didn't lke the idea then it started to grow cause anything was better than that boring 5 mins of 5 on 5. Plus i think the 3 on 3 would benifit the highly skilled teams.

I would be cool with the tie being back in the game. If the game ends in a tie after 6:40 of 3 on 3 then its a tie. This might force teams to take more chances vs a non division foe.

But what ever they do it has to be exciting to keep the fans in their seats. Back in the 90s if there was 10 minutes left in the game and it was looking like OT people would slowly start to leave. The shootout kept people in their seats to the end. SO what ever new OT they decide on has to be exciting enough to keep fans to the end.

I guess the 3 on 3 depends on the coach also, they might just sit back 2 defencemen and let one forward forecheck. That would defeat the purpose of the 3 on 3. I have played in a 3 on 3 league once, roller hockey. It was nothing for those games to end up 15-20 goals between the 2 teams. with 3, 15 minute running periods.

[Willie Kool]

Losers shouldn't get a point, ever. It should go back to how it was, 5 on 5 overtime with a tie worth 1 point each if no goal.

[meow]

How many of you have actually seen 3-on-3? It's terrible hockey. No one takes chances and teams end up playing at a molasses slow pace.

[no name]

How many of you have actually seen 3-on-3? It's terrible hockey. No one takes chances and teams end up playing at a molasses slow pace.

I have seen 3 on 3, and thoes games fall into a rut at times. In thoes 3 on 3 games its open, high scoring hockey for the first 2 periords then the 3rd period its the team with the lead trying to sit on their lead for the rest of the game.

Atricle in the post gazette Sid wants 3 on 3, and also favors the 3 point system. Regualtion win 3 pts, OT win 2 points, shootout 1 point. No points for the loser.