Jump to content

November 3, Ottawa vs Montreal, 7:30 PM


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

Scotty Bowman on 3 on 3 (Renaud Lavoie)

"I love that."

There are so many different opinions on this that it's basically to each their own.

From a personal standpoint, while I don't love it, I think a lot of that is somewhat based on the face that we haven't been very good at 3 on 3 as a team so far (preseason included). I'd like it a lot more if I didn't feel as though it lessened the gap between our team and others. That's only a short term view on the topic though.

Long term, what I don't agree with is that while the NHL's goal was to reduce the amount of shootouts, they kept the shootout and eliminated 4 on 4 altogether.

4 on 4

3 on 3

shootout

I'd take 4 on 4 any day of the week out of those 3 options. It should have been 4 on 4 followed by a few minutes of 3 on 3... And I don't agree that a couple of extra minutes once every 10-15 games would kill the players by the end of the season. I just simply don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They wanted a winner, no ties. Get it.

Now they want a quicker winner. Enter 3 on 3.

Imagine watching three on three for sixty minutes. No that would be a joke/gimmick

Gimmick decides outcome and winner of a game.

:thumbs_down:

But it's here to stay ....... as they once said about 4 on 4. Which is now gone. :rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ties are like kissing your sister, not very satisfying. 2 points for winner however they get it done o points for loser however they lose. That is hockey. No need for loser points at all.

Two teams play played a hard fought out battle for sixty minutes and are tied 2-2.

Then the coach tells more than half the team they can take their skates off and join the fans. You guys wont be needed as we decide the game. Zero points for the tie if a few team players lose in gimmick play ? Nah.

Gotta be a awarded for the sixty minute tie that came from a "TOTAL team effort" because "that's hockey"

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The superstars who play 20-28minutes/game would argue they shouldn't have to play one more second past a 60 minute game (without being compensated).

And no matter if is 3 on 3 /4 on 4/ 5 on 5 OT & shootout, it all just isn't near as important when already have a loser point in the bank and coaches will often try and kill clock to get to OT and then shootout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the NHL develop the idea that it constantly has to tinker around with the rules and structures of the game on an annual basis? Just curious about when this toxic notion entered our lives. I believe it all goes back to chronic insecurity in the 1970s and '80s about 'selling the game' in the USA. That's when ties, which had been accepted for generations, became problematized - because of the belief that American audiences were not able to accept ties and that this was stopping the product from selling in the US.

3 on 3 is silly, but better than the SO. Leave it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the NHL develop the idea that it constantly has to tinker around with the rules and structures of the game on an annual basis? Just curious about when this toxic notion entered our lives. I believe it all goes back to chronic insecurity in the 1970s and '80s about 'selling the game' in the USA. That's when ties, which had been accepted for generations, became problematized - because of the belief that American audiences were not able to accept ties and that this was stopping the product from selling in the US.

3 on 3 is silly, but better than the SO. Leave it alone.

The most succcessful league in North America tinkers on an annual basis, NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the NHL develop the idea that it constantly has to tinker around with the rules and structures of the game on an annual basis? Just curious about when this toxic notion entered our lives. I believe it all goes back to chronic insecurity in the 1970s and '80s about 'selling the game' in the USA. That's when ties, which had been accepted for generations, became problematized - because of the belief that American audiences were not able to accept ties and that this was stopping the product from selling in the US.

3 on 3 is silly, but better than the SO. Leave it alone.

I am with you. But needing an outcome is driven by gambling not hockey. Did I say that? Sh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with you. But needing an outcome is driven by gambling not hockey. Did I say that? Sh!

I am glad that an outcome comes from every game.

4 vs 4 > tie

3 vs 3 > tie

shootout > tie

Don Cherry > tie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad that an outcome comes from every game.

4 vs 4 > tie

3 vs 3 > tie

shootout > tie

Don Cherry > tie

Yes I agree anything is better than a tie, take away the loser point. The players don't want to play more than 60 mins? They do in most sports. Basketball, baseball, football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree anything is better than a tie, take away the loser point.

Kinda agree(and mainly because of the NHL in this era of league parody), but would like to see overtime until a winner is decided, 4 on 4 format.

That said and admitted, I am one of the only ones here that sees the merit of a tie as a measure...

There's not always a winner in everything in life, and a tie is more indicative of the truth/accuracy of the story/game, and in the case of a hockey game, the team with the most skilled top 3 being the usual winner, even if outplayed badly and lucky to have gained the tie late or whatever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been vocal about how they should have extended the 4 on 4 to 7 or even 10 minutes before going to the shootout.

I believe that many many games would have ended during that extra 3 to 5 minutes of overtime 4 on 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't really care how the games end as much as it bothers me that some games award 3 points and others only 2. It makes zero sense. Just because 2 teams happen to be tied after 60 minutes, they are both guaranteed at least a point. Take the Habs right now for example: they have been steamrolling the competition so far, winning all of their games in regulation and have the highest goal differential by a mile. It is simply not fair that a lesser team can hold on for dear life to get to overtime, scrap out a win in a skills battle and get those same 2 points. Look at Ottawa, sitting second in the division with only 4 wins in regulation out of 14 played. I think 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an extra frame win and 1 for an extra frame loss is the only reasonable way to account for what teams are actually deserving of their place in the standings. You want to see a game end in regulation? Watch a desperate team try to get 3 points instead of 1 or 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't really care how the games end as much as it bothers me that some games award 3 points and others only 2. It makes zero sense. Just because 2 teams happen to be tied after 60 minutes, they are both guaranteed at least a point. Take the Habs right now for example: they have been steamrolling the competition so far, winning all of their games in regulation and have the highest goal differential by a mile. It is simply not fair that a lesser team can hold on for dear life to get to overtime, scrap out a win in a skills battle and get those same 2 points. Look at Ottawa, sitting second in the division with only 4 wins in regulation out of 14 played. I think 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an extra frame win and 1 for an extra frame loss is the only reasonable way to account for what teams are actually deserving of their place in the standings. You want to see a game end in regulation? Watch a desperate team try to get 3 points instead of 1 or 2.

Put that way, that makes a lot of sense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't really care how the games end as much as it bothers me that some games award 3 points and others only 2. It makes zero sense. Just because 2 teams happen to be tied after 60 minutes, they are both guaranteed at least a point. Take the Habs right now for example: they have been steamrolling the competition so far, winning all of their games in regulation and have the highest goal differential by a mile. It is simply not fair that a lesser team can hold on for dear life to get to overtime, scrap out a win in a skills battle and get those same 2 points. Look at Ottawa, sitting second in the division with only 4 wins in regulation out of 14 played. I think 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an extra frame win and 1 for an extra frame loss is the only reasonable way to account for what teams are actually deserving of their place in the standings. You want to see a game end in regulation? Watch a desperate team try to get 3 points instead of 1 or 2.

This bothers me too. I think 3-2-1 scoring is a bit more complicated than it needs to be though. Now that there are two gimmicks at the end, a simple 2-1-0 might make sense. Dont give the team a reason to hold off for OT. 2 points in regulation, one point for gimmick win and 0 for losing. I really think that this would stop teams from shutting down and playing for the tie. It would devalue the gimmick win, and stats would not be as badly altered. The stats would be the same as the before loser point era.

Plus if you're trying to sell the game to Americans, you would have to think they become confused when the loser gets a point. It makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When did the NHL develop the idea that it constantly has to tinker around with the rules and structures of the game on an annual basis? Just curious about when this toxic notion entered our lives. I believe it all goes back to chronic insecurity in the 1970s and '80s about 'selling the game' in the USA. That's when ties, which had been accepted for generations, became problematized - because of the belief that American audiences were not able to accept ties and that this was stopping the product from selling in the US.

3 on 3 is silly, but better than the SO. Leave it alone.

:thumbs_up: Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been vocal about how they should have extended the 4 on 4 to 7 or even 10 minutes before going to the shootout.

I believe that many many games would have ended during that extra 3 to 5 minutes of overtime 4 on 4.

:thumbs_up:

Except the suits are looking for a quicker finish. Lots of 3 on 3 finish in less than two minutes. The suits seem to like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:thumbs_up:

Except the suits are looking for a quicker finish. Lots of 3 on 3 finish in less than two minutes. The suits seem to like that.

"The suits" wanted 4 on 4 for three minutes followed by 3 on 3 for four minutes.... like the AHL had last year.

The players association were the ones who wanted 3 on 3 for the full five minutes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...