Should Tuesday's game have ended in a tie?

[REV-G]

I'm glad the question of whether games should be decided by a shootout or end in a tie has come up and is being seriously discussed by

the GM's in their meetings.

I personally am no longer a fan of the shootout and I would like to see games end in a tie. On Tuesday night I think it was exciting to

see the Canadiens work and get the tying goal in the last few minutes of the game. I would have been quite happy for the game to have ended that way. One of the players, it might have been one of the Sedins, said the shootout is like flipping a coin to see

who's going to win. After watching the shootout for many years, I'm at the point where I tend to agree.

I would like to see it revert back to the way it was for many years when two teams battle all night and if it is an evenly played a

hard fought game and the game ends in a tie, then that's the way it should end.

I think our overtime format in the playoffs is exciting and shouldn't be changed, and I wouldn't want to see that used in the

regular season because the games would be too long for both the players and the fans. Maybe extend the existing 5 minute overtime an

extra 2 minutes with fewer players on the ice. But for the games to be decided by a shootout.....it's time to get rid of it.

What do you think?

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

The shootout is a joke. Always was, and I'm glad to see opinion shifting on it.

The trouble with the old "tie" format was that you'd see incredibly tedious 3rd periods as both teams "played for the tie."

Here is the solution. We don't need some dumbass "4-on-4, 3-on-3" format. All we need to do is make a tie count for a loss. In other words, if two teams tie, neither of them gets a point for that game.

Bingo. The result will be incredibly exciting 3rd period hockey as both teams go full-bore on offence in order to break the tie. No stupid shootout, no boring "playing for the tie," just the most exciting regular season hockey we've ever seen.

This solution is so elegantly simple and so bullet-proof that I'm depressed you never, ever hear it being considered.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

The shootout was never a good idea. I enjoyed the novelty of it for a few years, now I could care less, and I hate when the Canadiens are in a shootout.

In baseball, when the score is tied, do they have a home run derby?

In football, when the score is tied, do they have a punt, pass and kick competition?

In basketball, is there a slam dunk competition?

The shootout is not only cheapening the sport, but it's destroying the last two weeks of the year. The loser point is making it impossible for teams to catch up more than one or two spots.

[Guest Stogey24]

If we were winning shoot outs people would be all for it.

The shoot out keeps games controllable time wise. It was tough on teams having to play an entire extra period of hockey or more. Especially if a team plays back to back nights.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

If we were winning shoot outs people would be all for it.

No, the push-back against the shootout is gathering steam, well outside the world of Habs' fans. It's been discussed for the last few days on Vancouver radio, for instance. The SO was always a gimmick. My concern is that we'll replace it with another gimmick instead of just making a tie worth zero, which is the method that is most faithful to the integrity of the game.

[DON]

If we were winning shoot outs people would be all for it.

The shoot out keeps games controllable time wise. It was tough on teams having to play an entire extra period of hockey or more. Especially if a team plays back to back nights.

I never have liked and has absolutely nothing to do with Habs track record, just is a goofy way (thank you soccer) to end a team game.

4-4 and 3-3 OTs are fine and simply a tie after 60minutes is also fine, but don't know if owners will go back to that, American fans don't like ties (NBA play overtime, NFL same and MLB likewise).

[dlbalr]

I'm glad the question of whether games should be decided by a shootout or end in a tie has come up and is being seriously discussed by the GM's in their meetings.

They're discussing how to reduce shootouts but I don't think there's any appetite from the league/GM's to go back to ties. I'd like to see that but the shootout is probably here to stay.

If we were winning shoot outs people would be all for it.

Not me. I didn't like it then, don't like it now, won't like it in the future, win or lose.

[Colin]

Solution? 3 points for a win. So teams, you know, play for a win.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Solution? 3 points for a win. So teams, you know, play for a win.

Wouldn't it be simpler just to make a tie worth zero points? No loser point, no "tie" point. Win or die.

[huzer]

A penalty shot used to be a rather exciting play. The shoot out has ruined that. When Plex got the PS, I was actually bored with it. The league thought they needed a gimmick coming out of that lockout. They didn't. The shoot out isn't what attracts people to NHL hockey. It's a loathsome device that needs to be mothballed.

I like the idea of 0 points for a tie.

[habs rule]

I think the fans would be up in arms over 0 points for a tie. While it does make some sense, if you went on a long run of ties you could have 0 points, very distressing for fans. Also a hard fought 5-5 tie has to be worth more than a 6-1 loss no? The shootout is crap and has been shown as such by the players with all the goofy plays. I would say 10 mins o/t with 4 on 4 should suffice and if after that it is a tie then so be it. But if a team wins in o/t then 2 points for the winner and 0 points for the loser. Just like playoff hockey, lose in o/t you go home. As to the players being too tired etc after 10 extra minutes of hockey, I say tough nooggies, go look at your paycheck, you don't like o/t then win in regulation, The wear and tear of a long season is what is part of the process, if you have a lot of o/t and wear yourselves out, that is just how it goes. Injuries and fatigue play big parts in who wins the cup.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

habsrule, I see your point about 5-5 being worth more than a 6-1 loss...but you could make the exactly same claim about a hard-fought 5-4 loss being "worth more" than a 6-1 loss. If blowouts count for precisely the same as the narrowest of losses, the same could be true of ties; there is nothing intrinsic to a tie that says it has to be worth anything. It comes down to what we're conditioned to expect.

If ties become worth 0, fans will eventually adjust to that expectation, and instead of bitching about format, the fans will start attacking a team that rattles off 10 ties in a row for being unable to close the deal...much in the same way that fans get grumpy about a series of shootout losses, attacking the goalie for not being able to shut the door, or the players for having insufficient individual talent. We'll move on, in short, and the hockey will be spectacular.

[hockeyrealist]

Some good points brought up, I like many of these ideas. Watching teams "play for the tie" is brutal, it would be akin to watching Jaques Martin style "protect the 1 goal lead" hockey all lover the place. Very frustrating to watch. I personally do not like the idea of 3 on 3, would rather a SO than that. Very tough decision, the SO's were exciting at first but now have lost the appeal, I feel bad for goalies who stand on their hands all night only to lose in SO. Very sticky situation, that is why playoffs are so great, there is no easy way out. These players are all in incredible shape and should be able to handle extended OT but network tv would not like it very much.

Zero points for a tie, hmmmm. Kind of warming to that idea as it definitely motivates teams to take the initiative.

The deserving team ending up with the points on Tuesday though, would have loved to see the habs get 2 points but they did not deserve it.

[Lovett's Magnatones]

I think that the Habs are at a disadvantage because no one can do the spin o rama. How pathetic is the shootout?

[Guest Stogey24]

I think that the Habs are at a disadvantage because no one can do the spin o rama. How pathetic is the shootout?

Eller?

[JoeLassister]

0 point for a tie is a good idea as long as the Habs will not finish the season with 12+ tie games and miss the playoffs.

Then, we will all cry for the return of one of the former system they used for OT.

On my part, I definitely hate, I mean HATE tie games. It sucks in soccer, it sucks in hockey, it sucks in life in general.

I don't care if the guys gave all they had, I want a winning team in the end. Period.

And I'm not even a season ticket owner. Imagine getting 4-5 of these tie games... in a row...

It's been pointed out in this thread, but my sugestion would be the 10 minutes 4 vs 4. Most of the time, we see that one team, or even both, are on the edge of getting a goal when the 5 mins is over. 5 more minutes would probably do it on many occasions.

I don't mind about shootout. I prefer regular hockey, but don't REALLY mind.

[Neech]

I don't like 0 points for a tie, it uses the same failed logic of the loser point - that teams will play more open hockey based on how many points they have in the bank. Besides, it only makes sense for games that are already tied, whereas teams that are down by 1 or 2 goals will have less incentive to fight back and teams that are up by that margin will be more inclined to close up shop. And at its root, it's unfair, moreso than the current system. A tie should be worth more than a loss.

[illWill]

I'm a firm believer that each game played should award the same amount of points. I think the best way to do that is award 3 points. 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an overtime/shootout win, and 1 for overtime/shootout loss. The current format isn't reflective of how teams actually perform during the course of the season. Theoretically a team could just line up all 5 guys in front of their own net, blocking each shot and icing the puck the whole game until OT. Even if they lost every OT and shootout, they would still have 82 points.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

3 points: regulation win

2 points: Overtime/Shootout win

1 point: Overtime/Shootout loss

0 points: regulation loss

[Neech]

3 points: regulation win

2 points: Overtime/Shootout win

1 point: Overtime/Shootout loss

0 points: regulation loss

But the math, think of the math!

This is the one that seems to make the most sense, but I think traditionalists are really attached to a 2-point win in hockey. One thing I'd stick with is to give full points to OT winners, and maybe even shootout winners. The loser point would have less effect in 3-point-win scoring.

[habs rule]

habsrule, I see your point about 5-5 being worth more than a 6-1 loss...but you could make the exactly same claim about a hard-fought 5-4 loss being "worth more" than a 6-1 loss. If blowouts count for precisely the same as the narrowest of losses, the same could be true of ties; there is nothing intrinsic to a tie that says it has to be worth anything. It comes down to what we're conditioned to expect.

If ties become worth 0, fans will eventually adjust to that expectation, and instead of bitching about format, the fans will start attacking a team that rattles off 10 ties in a row for being unable to close the deal...much in the same way that fans get grumpy about a series of shootout losses, attacking the goalie for not being able to shut the door, or the players for having insufficient individual talent. We'll move on, in short, and the hockey will be spectacular.

Well CC the thing is I don't believe there is any traction for 0 pts on a tie. I do not think any gm is going to propose it or vote for it. Technically you could tie 82 games and end the year with 0 points. So a team that actually lost 80 games and won 2 would have 4 pts and beat you out of the playoffs. I know that is taking it to the extreme but I do believe a tie is worth more than a loss, because you did not lose. We need a way to decide a winner in as many games as possible, while the shoot out does that it is very flawed. So the idea of 3 points for a regulation win 2 pts in o/t, 1 point for a tie and 0 points for any loss of any kind makes some sense to me. With an extra point for regulation wins you would see teams going for the win rather than the tie.

[JGC21]

I would do 4-on-4 for 10 minutes.

After 5 minutes if no one's scored then the ref automatically calls an interference penalty on the team of his choice.

Boom, 4-on-3 powerplay with both teams gassed. Somebody's bound to score!

[BlueKross]

I don't think you have to go back too many years, you should find a thread debating this very topic.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

I would do 4-on-4 for 10 minutes.

After 5 minutes if no one's scored then the ref automatically calls an interference penalty on the team of his choice.

Boom, 4-on-3 powerplay with both teams gassed. Somebody's bound to score!

The joke here is that this already happens

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

Well CC the thing is I don't believe there is any traction for 0 pts on a tie. I do not think any gm is going to propose it or vote for it. Technically you could tie 82 games and end the year with 0 points. So a team that actually lost 80 games and won 2 would have 4 pts and beat you out of the playoffs. I know that is taking it to the extreme but I do believe a tie is worth more than a loss, because you did not lose. We need a way to decide a winner in as many games as possible, while the shoot out does that it is very flawed. So the idea of 3 points for a regulation win 2 pts in o/t, 1 point for a tie and 0 points for any loss of any kind makes some sense to me. With an extra point for regulation wins you would see teams going for the win rather than the tie.

A team could go through the entire year and get 0 points under the current model too (or any model). That's not a critique of the proposal. Nor is saying that "a tie means you didn't lose" and therefore should be worth something. I can just as easily observe that "a tie means that you didn't win" and therefore don't deserve anything.

What your post really illustrates is that many fans are absolutely fixated on the idea that a tie "must" be worth something. Like I said before, this is an essentially arbitrary idea. A tie means what we decide it means. There is no reason at all why we "must" decide that it "must" be worth something rather than nothing.

But you're right that the idea has minimal traction, even though it would produce incredibly exciting balls-to-the-wall hockey; and it has no traction for just the reason you state, i.e., people are conditioned to think that a tie "must" have value. It's too bad, because our inability to think outside this box leads to all these other inelegant solutions. But it is what it is and you're right, the NHL will go with one of those other inferior options.