BlueKross Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 Check it out---SPOT ON Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakiqc Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 This thread will self-destruct in 5...4... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCHabnut Posted August 20, 2010 Share Posted August 20, 2010 link I couldn't agree more. What a waste of time all this stuff is. Get rid of th ewhole lot and go back to the right way. 5 minutes of OT. If you lose you get nothing. If you tie you get a point, and if you win you get two. All played 5 on 5. Nothing has changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted August 20, 2010 Author Share Posted August 20, 2010 link? www.habsinsideout.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForumGhost Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Couldn't agree less. Love the shootouts. Having undecided games is dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvvrob Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 the shootout is great TV. its entertaining - and that's what hockey is supposed to be. can't play all night like we would in the playoffs. but, i do wish they would stop rewarding the loser with 1 point. winner take 2, loser take 0 ... no ties. ever. i'll go to bed elated or i'll go to be devastated ... but never 'meh - at least we got a point' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Anyone advocating regular season shootouts should also advocate them for the playoffs. The reason is simple: shootouts now determine who gets IN the playoffs in the first place. So what's the difference? Yet what we usually hear is, 'regular season shootouts, I'm all for it! But not for the playoffs.' Well, if you think a team's fate should not be decided in this silly way, then you should be against the shootouts, period. I agree that shootouts are exciting. But so would having a knife-throwing competition, a magic show, or an America- Idol-style singing contest to decide the outcome, or having the two teams' goons strip to the waist and have a fight to unconsciousness (they could call it 'The NHL's Contest of Champions!! '). The point is, like these other activities, shootouts have zero to do with the game of hockey. (I have to laugh, too, when the same guy praising the shootouts condemns fighting because it 'has no place in the game.' Right...the novelty act shootout is an integral part, but not the element that's been present since hockey's origins as lacrosse/rugby on ice. Sure). Ties were good enough for hockey fans for 85 years. They only became an issue as part of the wider debate in the 1980s about how to sell hockey in the USA - i.e., to non-hockey fans. Most American sports have very little space for ties, so ties became an issue because the US audience couldn't understand them. Unfortunately, if predictably, getting rid of ties has done absolutely diddly-squat to increase the game's appeal to these non-fans. The shootout was an answer to a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Red is right on this one, but sadly it's a fight he won't win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvvrob Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Anyone advocating regular season shootouts should also advocate them for the playoffs. The reason is simple: shootouts now determine who gets IN the playoffs in the first place. So what's the difference? Yet what we usually hear is, 'regular season shootouts, I'm all for it! But not for the playoffs.' Well, if you think a team's fate should not be decided in this silly way, then you should be against the shootouts, period. I agree that shootouts are exciting. But so would having a knife-throwing competition, a magic show, or an America- Idol-style singing contest to decide the outcome, or having the two teams' goons strip to the waist and have a fight to unconsciousness (they could call it 'The NHL's Contest of Champions!! '). The point is, like these other activities, shootouts have zero to do with the game of hockey. (I have to laugh, too, when the same guy praising the shootouts condemns fighting because it 'has no place in the game.' Right...the novelty act shootout is an integral part, but not the element that's been present since hockey's origins as lacrosse/rugby on ice. Sure). Ties were good enough for hockey fans for 85 years. They only became an issue as part of the wider debate in the 1980s about how to sell hockey in the USA - i.e., to non-hockey fans. Most American sports have very little space for ties, so ties became an issue because the US audience couldn't understand them. Unfortunately, if predictably, getting rid of ties has done absolutely diddly-squat to increase the game's appeal to these non-fans. The shootout was an answer to a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Red is right on this one, but sadly it's a fight he won't win. i like shootouts in the regular season, not in the playoffs. why? because it IS a different game in the playoffs. the intensity is at a completely different level in post-season play. 4 bad games in a row, and ur done. in the regular season, a 4 game slump is bad, but we all know it is what it is, a slump. shootouts add intensity and interest. and its not just to US markets. i'm a Canadian and i like being put on the end of my seat for what would otherwise just be the end of another ordinary game. the shootout can make the dullest of games exciting. i don't need that extra 'gimmick' in the playoffs because every minute is so crucial. but face it - in the regular season, a loss is easily overcome by 81 other games. ur talking about the 7th or 8th seeds getting access to the playoffs because of the shootout? even in this past playoff which was extremely unusual, in the end, no 7th or 8th seeded team won the cup. the best teams find a way to win ... eventually. and they can handle a few 'silly' shoot-out losses and still make the post-season. advertisers (even Canadian ones) & TV stations (even Canadian ones) like the predictability of the timing of the game's end. i'm all for the tradition of the game, and the fact 'it was good enough for 85 years' argument, but just because we were fine before, doesn't mean we aren't better off now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted August 21, 2010 Author Share Posted August 21, 2010 i like shootouts in the regular season, not in the playoffs. why? because it IS a different game in the playoffs. the intensity is at a completely different level in post-season play. 4 bad games in a row, and ur done. in the regular season, a 4 game slump is bad, but we all know it is what it is, a slump. but just because we were fine before, doesn't mean we aren't better off now. I think Fishers point was that he doesn't feel we are better off with the shout out. I agree. The game may go longer so one would get longer viewing time, but I see a lot of spinning wheels were they play for the point and chance to get to shout-out. I don't think we seen so much black and white since the Price/Halak debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 Anyone advocating regular season shootouts should also advocate them for the playoffs. The reason is simple: shootouts now determine who gets IN the playoffs in the first place. So what's the difference? Yet what we usually hear is, 'regular season shootouts, I'm all for it! But not for the playoffs.' Well, if you think a team's fate should not be decided in this silly way, then you should be against the shootouts, period. I agree that shootouts are exciting. But so would having a knife-throwing competition, a magic show, or an America- Idol-style singing contest to decide the outcome, or having the two teams' goons strip to the waist and have a fight to unconsciousness (they could call it 'The NHL's Contest of Champions!! '). The point is, like these other activities, shootouts have zero to do with the game of hockey. (I have to laugh, too, when the same guy praising the shootouts condemns fighting because it 'has no place in the game.' Right...the novelty act shootout is an integral part, but not the element that's been present since hockey's origins as lacrosse/rugby on ice. Sure). Ties were good enough for hockey fans for 85 years. They only became an issue as part of the wider debate in the 1980s about how to sell hockey in the USA - i.e., to non-hockey fans. Most American sports have very little space for ties, so ties became an issue because the US audience couldn't understand them. Unfortunately, if predictably, getting rid of ties has done absolutely diddly-squat to increase the game's appeal to these non-fans. The shootout was an answer to a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Red is right on this one, but sadly it's a fight he won't win. I don't care if there are shootouts or not but I like watching shootouts and I would also like watching knife-throwing competitions, magic shows, singing contests and fights to the death. Why does the same tie-breaker have to be used during the playoffs and the regular season? Playoff hockey already has the best tie-breaker in sports (unlimited OT). It's great for the playoffs but isn't an option for regular season games. So? A different tie-breaker needs to be used. I don't see why, if someone was ranking his favourite tie-breakers, he couldn't list 1) Unlimited OT 2) Shootout 3) 5-minute OT + tie 4) Tie. This would result in Unlimited OT being used in the playoffs but shootouts being used in the regular season (what we have). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted August 21, 2010 Share Posted August 21, 2010 I'd actually prefer if they played OT til there was a winner, playoff style. The shootout to me was a gimmick to draw in the American fans. Although if they were to keep doing the shootouts, I wouldn't be heartbroken, I just wish they'd change the point system to a more soccer style: 3pts for the win, 1pts for a (overtime/shootout) loss, and give 2pts for a overtime/shootout win. This has been talked about a lot before so this is by no means my original idea, but I like it, it'd get rid of the argument that theres more points being awarded now since every game is worth 3pts, vs. the current way with some are 2pt games, some are 3pt. What I do like about the shootout is it shows that hockey is willing to change, football is one of the best rated sports in North America, and it continues to change with the times, basketball is the same way, baseball is declining in popularity and makes changes at a snailspace, now I'm not claiming that the lack of changes is the reason, but it could be a factor. There are the purists who will bemoan change, and by all accounts this Red Fisher is one of them, heck even Football(soccer) will be adding instant replay to decide goals in future world cups, and they are the classic definition of a purist sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted August 22, 2010 Author Share Posted August 22, 2010 I'd actually prefer if they played OT til there was a winner, playoff style. The shootout to me was a gimmick to draw in the American fans. Although if they were to keep doing the shootouts, I wouldn't be heartbroken, I just wish they'd change the point system to a more soccer style: 3pts for the win, 1pts for a (overtime/shootout) loss, and give 2pts for a overtime/shootout win. This has been talked about a lot before so this is by no means my original idea, but I like it, it'd get rid of the argument that theres more points being awarded now since every game is worth 3pts, vs. the current way with some are 2pt games, some are 3pt. What I do like about the shootout is it shows that hockey is willing to change, football is one of the best rated sports in North America, and it continues to change with the times, basketball is the same way, baseball is declining in popularity and makes changes at a snailspace, now I'm not claiming that the lack of changes is the reason, but it could be a factor. There are the purists who will bemoan change, and by all accounts this Red Fisher is one of them, heck even Football(soccer) will be adding instant replay to decide goals in future world cups, and they are the classic definition of a purist sport. Then if you are in the camp of change for the sake of change, I wonder how you would feel is baseball went to the home run derby after nine innings to decide contests much like hockey has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 I don't care if there are shootouts or not but I like watching shootouts and I would also like watching knife-throwing competitions, magic shows, singing contests and fights to the death. Why does the same tie-breaker have to be used during the playoffs and the regular season? Playoff hockey already has the best tie-breaker in sports (unlimited OT). It's great for the playoffs but isn't an option for regular season games. So? A different tie-breaker needs to be used. I don't see why, if someone was ranking his favourite tie-breakers, he couldn't list 1) Unlimited OT 2) Shootout 3) 5-minute OT + tie 4) Tie. This would result in Unlimited OT being used in the playoffs but shootouts being used in the regular season (what we have). Thoughtful as always, BTH! But my point was that many people who support the SO ALSO argue that SO are a terrible idea for the playoffs, because of their belief that that's a poor and arbitrary way to settle things when everything is on the line. They therefore argue that SO should only be used for the regular season, because those games don't matter as much. But since regular season games DO matter nearly as much - in any given season you've got maybe 5 teams in each conference jockeying for 8th place, with 2-3 points making the difference - the SO are doing precisely the same thing they'd do in the playoffs, namely decide the entire destinies of teams. If, therefore, you believe that a sideshow should not be used to settle the final fate of Teams X and Y, then you should be opposed to the shootout, period. I love BlueKross's last post. Of course, there's a much, much wider issue here - between people who dig novelty and change, and people who prefer that highly successful practices and institutions not be arbitrarily mucked around with. We live in an age dominated by the first type of person. Which, frankly, is one of our biggest problems, if you ask me - but no one did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Well. That's why Columbus GM proposed that the tie breaker for playoffs spot should be reg/OT wins and exclude shootout wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Well. That's why Columbus GM proposed that the tie breaker for playoffs spot should be reg/OT wins and exclude shootout wins. Yeh, great call. Howson proposed this back in March and the rule change just needs the final approval from the board of governers on Sept 14th. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5482334 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 Then if you are in the camp of change for the sake of change, I wonder how you would feel is baseball went to the home run derby after nine innings to decide contests much like hockey has done. I don't mean to be rude but did you read my post? The first line I say "I'd actually prefer if they played OT til there was a winner, playoff style." You're claiming I'm some champion of change? I think you misunderstood the entire meaning of my post. It was not that I want more gimmicks, it's that I'm happy that the NHL is proactive and smart enough to realize the game wasn't and is not perfect and you need to adapt. Back to your question about the homerun derby to settle a baseball game. The extra innings is one thing baseball has right, play til there's a winner. In a day and age of private chartered planes, I cannot see why teams cannot play til there's a winner. Haha CC, I'm of the other position, that there's far too many "hold on to traditions for traditions sake" people still in power which is holding back sports and the world in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 I don't mean to be rude but did you read my post? The first line I say "I'd actually prefer if they played OT til there was a winner, playoff style." You're claiming I'm some champion of change? I think you misunderstood the entire meaning of my post. It was not that I want more gimmicks, it's that I'm happy that the NHL is proactive and smart enough to realize the game wasn't and is not perfect and you need to adapt. Back to your question about the homerun derby to settle a baseball game. The extra innings is one thing baseball has right, play til there's a winner. In a day and age of private chartered planes, I cannot see why teams cannot play til there's a winner. Haha CC, I'm of the other position, that there's far too many "hold on to traditions for traditions sake" people still in power which is holding back sports and the world in general. Comon' imagine 20 games out ouf 82 go in OT, and 10 of these go to extra OT... Hockey ain't baseball. It is 100X more physical and you need to be in a much better shape to play hockey than baseball. Everyone but pitcher and catcher could play 50 straight innings if the temperature is good enough. If we do this with hockey, teams that would go in OT more often than the others would most likely be out of the playoffs because of fatigue and injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bar Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 What it'd do is force teams to use all four lines more, and I'm all for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted August 23, 2010 Author Share Posted August 23, 2010 Comon' imagine 20 games out ouf 82 go in OT, and 10 of these go to extra OT... Hockey ain't baseball. It is 100X more physical and you need to be in a much better shape to play hockey than baseball. Everyone but pitcher and catcher could play 50 straight innings if the temperature is good enough. If we do this with hockey, teams that would go in OT more often than the others would most likely be out of the playoffs because of fatigue and injuries. Perhaps if they have are going to go to overtime to decide maybe they think harder about deciding it in regular time. You think? The shoot-out idea was drafted to complete games in a timely fashion to accommodate networks broadcasting. For this reason alone, the idea of playing overtime till it was decided will not be coming back. Of course this is the best way to decide a contest and must be the way in the play-offs. Having said that, that leaves you with either letting games end in tie or the shoot-out scenerio. It is much more repulsive to me to have a contest decided by a gimmick than having a game not decided. I am in the camp, one period of overtime, two points only per game to be awarded. Psst-- I am not repulsed to be referred to as an old stick-in-the-mud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Yeh, great call. Howson proposed this back in March and the rule change just needs the final approval from the board of governers on Sept 14th. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5482334 Seems like a reasonable strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revvvrob Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Seems like a reasonable strategy. yep - makes sense to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted August 23, 2010 Share Posted August 23, 2010 Thoughtful as always, BTH! But my point was that many people who support the SO ALSO argue that SO are a terrible idea for the playoffs, because of their belief that that's a poor and arbitrary way to settle things when everything is on the line. They therefore argue that SO should only be used for the regular season, because those games don't matter as much. But since regular season games DO matter nearly as much - in any given season you've got maybe 5 teams in each conference jockeying for 8th place, with 2-3 points making the difference - the SO are doing precisely the same thing they'd do in the playoffs, namely decide the entire destinies of teams. If, therefore, you believe that a sideshow should not be used to settle the final fate of Teams X and Y, then you should be opposed to the shootout, period. I love BlueKross's last post. Of course, there's a much, much wider issue here - between people who dig novelty and change, and people who prefer that highly successful practices and institutions not be arbitrarily mucked around with. We live in an age dominated by the first type of person. Which, frankly, is one of our biggest problems, if you ask me - but no one did. Hmm... I've never heard anyone make that argument before. "Shootouts suck but so do regular season games so they're perfect for each other." But then again, maybe that's actually my own opinion, lol. I know that shootouts aren't the "fairest" way to end games but I don't really care because they're good entertainment and that's what the NHL's there for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronthab Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 (edited) Anyone advocating regular season shootouts should also advocate them for the playoffs. The reason is simple: shootouts now determine who gets IN the playoffs in the first place. So what's the difference? Yet what we usually hear is, 'regular season shootouts, I'm all for it! But not for the playoffs.' Well, if you think a team's fate should not be decided in this silly way, then you should be against the shootouts, period. I agree that shootouts are exciting. But so would having a knife-throwing competition, a magic show, or an America- Idol-style singing contest to decide the outcome, or having the two teams' goons strip to the waist and have a fight to unconsciousness (they could call it 'The NHL's Contest of Champions!! '). The point is, like these other activities, shootouts have zero to do with the game of hockey. (I have to laugh, too, when the same guy praising the shootouts condemns fighting because it 'has no place in the game.' Right...the novelty act shootout is an integral part, but not the element that's been present since hockey's origins as lacrosse/rugby on ice. Sure). Ties were good enough for hockey fans for 85 years. They only became an issue as part of the wider debate in the 1980s about how to sell hockey in the USA - i.e., to non-hockey fans. Most American sports have very little space for ties, so ties became an issue because the US audience couldn't understand them. Unfortunately, if predictably, getting rid of ties has done absolutely diddly-squat to increase the game's appeal to these non-fans. The shootout was an answer to a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Red is right on this one, but sadly it's a fight he won't win. It's so nice to read my thoughts so well expressed without all the effort of having to write them down. And I had not made the sales schtick to the US market connection. Good point. Implicit in your comment is the sound point that shoot-outs are an insult to the game, as they are in any team sport. Ties have dignity. And a tie disappoints the way an unsuccessful phone call to a recently met love interest adds romantic tension. That ain't all bad as in , "This ain't over yet." Many a fine piece of music pauses just before the end making us wait that little bit of extra time that catches our attention before delivering that final resolution. I also find them exciting, and exciting is good, but so is the girl at the party who ain't your wife. Excitement indulged ain't necessarily a good thing and as Red points out, doesn't lead to an improved hockey experience. Dump the shootouts. Bring back hockey. Americans can watch Dawg or some other freak show. Edited August 27, 2010 by Toronthab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted August 27, 2010 Share Posted August 27, 2010 This is pretty simple 1. Get rid of the shoot outs 2. End overtime 3. 3 points regulation win, 1 point tie, 0 points for a win. Reward teams for winning in regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.