New OT rules

[Idoit40fans]

Yeah I was just coming back here to say that I can't imagine that the shootout being removed is a possibility.

[Rylan]

[youtube][/youtube]

[no name]

Beat me to it Rylan, I was ready to show this.

But that little sampling of 3 on 3 shows a lot of open ice and back and forth hockey. If you want more goals scored in OT this seems to be the way to go. I have to admit in a small way its a little to open but this seems to be what you have to do to get more OT goals scored. But I would have to say don't do 4 mins of 4 on 4 then 4 mins of 3 on 3. just go with 5 mins of 3 on 3. Teams always by nature seem to try to extend the game futher with conservative play. NO MORE SHOOTOUTS!!!!!! end the game in a tie if the 3 on 3 is unproductive.

[pcm]

Lots of open space and back forth, but were there really very good scoring chances? The goal goes in the net after it goes back to 4 on 4...

[Idoit40fans]

3 on 3 is a gimmick, just not quite as much of a gimmick as a shootout.

[MRandall25]

The Kings seemed to spend a lot of time on the outside of the offensive zone. It wasn't really as "open" as it looked. Seemed like they shoehorned themselves instead of allowing creativity.

[no name]

The Kings seemed to spend a lot of time on the outside of the offensive zone. It wasn't really as "open" as it looked. Seemed like they shoehorned themselves instead of allowing creativity.

I got to figure both teams were kinda lost, wonder how many practiced 3 on 3 before. Most you would get is doing 3 on 2 rush drills in practice. This might account for the lack of creative play. I would imagine if teams practiced 3 on 3 there would of been a lot more flow out there. But as much as open ice I seen out there you know some coaches would just try and find a way to close it back up.

If teams practiced it a lot more and players knew where to go what to do and how to cover for one another it would be entertaining. With that much open ice it has got to generate scoring chances.

[no name]

I read that 4 on 4 for 10 mins is leading the pack in what they might do. See if it gains traction at the GM meetings during the break.

I say keep OT the same but just switich the nets with these:

[Crankshaft]

Is the current OT system broken?

[no name]

Is the current OT system broken?

The owners want to see less shootouts. Broken no, but i think it can be improved.

[MRandall25]

If they want less shootouts, then force the teams to actually play in OT, instead of dawdling around and waiting for the 5 minutes to end.

[no name]

If they want less shootouts, then force the teams to actually play in OT, instead of dawdling around and waiting for the 5 minutes to end.

I want more games to be determined in regulation and for them to not even make OT. Seeing teams with 15 OT loses in a season is a bit much. Heck some teams have more OT loses than loses. You can see they just try to push the games to OT and get the point. As a coach i guess it makes sence to just get the game to OT and get atleast a point out of the contest. As a fan i would rather see a true winner determined during the game. I would think maybe the 3 point win system would get more teams to push to get the win in regulation.

Maybe a regulation win should be worth 3 points, OT win 2 point and a OT loss 1 pts.

[the wicked child]

I'm not sure that the 3 point system will really push teams to win in regulation necessarily though... teams might decide that getting 1 or 2 points is better than taking a risk and potentially getting none while their opponent gets 3. Short of playing until someone wins and not awarding any loser points, I don't think you'll really be able to solve that one.

[Rylan]

2 pts ROW
1 pt SO win
0 pts loss

[dodint]

5on5, no goalies. No shots from outside of the blue line. Quick, easy, no less absurd than half of the content in this thread.

[dey soff]

I like this idea.

2 pts ROW
1 pt SO win
0 pts loss

[Pitt87]

2 pts ROW
1 pt SO win
0 pts loss

I assume you mean to say that winners get 2pts for Reg/OT win, and 1pt for SO win, where loser in OT or SO gets nothing?

I'm good with that...

[shmenguin]

2 pts ROW
1 pt SO win
0 pts loss

that would make overtime much more interesting.

[pcm]

I've been on the fence about bigger nets, soley for historical purposes. But I really like what Bucci has to say about giving players and fans bigger payoffs. And what does it have to do with OT rules? Bigger nets = more scoring = shorter OT's = fewer shootouts.

I've been on record for more than a decade that I would like to see a very slightly larger net. Baseball has lowered the mound and football relaxed rules to help the offense. I think the only adjustment the NHL can make to increase scoring and get fans out of their seats is a bigger net.

The 1950s was a low-scoring decade, especially in the first half of the decade. There was a slight increase in the '60s and then a nice climb in the '70s and '80s, with a peak of more than eight goals per game in the '81-82 season. That was Gretzky's 92-120-212 season. That scoring rate stayed around there for another four years, took a little tick down, and then plummeted after the 1994 lockout. By the late 1990s, we were back to the early '50's, except everyone had a goatee. The second lockout rule changes got the goals per game rate up to the 1960s range, but as the game was called less rigidly again, we dropped right back to the early '50s again.

I understand competitive hockey is better than high-scoring, blowout hockey. Tension is dramatic and scoring doesn't matter as much in the postseason. But I believe there is not enough payoff in hockey. Amazing moves are not rewarded enough with goals. There are games when people get up and scream one, two or three times.

Football's popularity has soared as the offensive game has opened up in college and the NFL. I think a slightly bigger net -- I'm talking an inch or two -- should result in more payoff for the players and more fun for the fans. What's wrong with seven or eight goals per game instead of five? The goalies are so good and the defensemen are so agile. There are no plugs on the blue line and no bender tenders. I think the NCAA and the NHL could take the game to another level with more goals, more screaming, more payoff from these amazing athletes.

[mikey287]

I just don't understand why you would give inches to the nets when you can still take them from the goalies...the nets have been the same size since Art Ross created them some 100 years ago or whatever it was...goalie pads are the thing that keeps moving the, um, goal posts...just scale them back a couple inches...you get a better game because you satisfy both sides of it: people that think goals = excitement and people like me that want to see better hockey. Goalies with smaller pads will have to adapt with athleticism...

When chest protectors stop becoming net protectors, then you'll have some grounds to re-evaluate other avenues...until then, the answer is standing on your face, staring at it from above...

[Mr. Colby]

4 on 4 for 10 minutes. No shootout.

2 points win
1 point tie
0 points loss

------OR------

4 on 4 for 5 minutes. 3 on 3 for 5 minutes with all penalties resulting in a penalty shot. No shootout.

2 points win
1 point tie
0 points loss


DEATH TO THE SHOOTOUT

[no name]

5 on 5 for ten minutes, and use the bubble nets (pic top part of page)

2 pts OT win
0 pts for the loser
1 point if they tie.

Really for OT what would the big deal be with the different nets. End result would be more OT goals scored.

[Idoit40fans]

They should play posts 3 on 3.