Jump to content

Shootout article


BlueKross

Recommended Posts

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.

+1. It's so simple, I hadn't thought of it. *Forehead slap*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no the 3 pts for a win, 1 pt for a tie, would ruin the way standings are...every game would not be worth the same, thats the issue is now with the dreaded 3 pt game (2 for win, 1 for OT/SO loss). I'm all for getting rid of shootouts, but you gotta maintain that each game is worth the same points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would that ruin anything? The system now stinks, you can get 2 points, 1 point or zero points.

Except for an extra point for an overtime or shoot out win. That is the current problem, soem games give 2 points out, some 3. It isn't fair to have 3 point games and earning extra points for losing. You get nothing for losing, that why it's called losing.

My system fixes that.

Plus i would throw out the instigator rule as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your system wouldn't solve it Chris because games would not be worth the same amount of points, some would be 3 pts and some would be 2. Your system is just a reverse of the current system thats in place regarding fairness of points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your system wouldn't solve it Chris because games would not be worth the same amount of points, some would be 3 pts and some would be 2. Your system is just a reverse of the current system thats in place regarding fairness of points.

This post completely contradicts your signature, bar. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no the 3 pts for a win, 1 pt for a tie, would ruin the way standings are...every game would not be worth the same, thats the issue is now with the dreaded 3 pt game (2 for win, 1 for OT/SO loss). I'm all for getting rid of shootouts, but you gotta maintain that each game is worth the same points.

Couldn't agree more. All games must be awarded the same amount of points. I prefer just two points per game. If you are going to three points, every game is worth three points. The three point sometimes system reeks as much as the shoot-out and if you weigh that against having a game end in tie, as far as I am concerned there is no contest. Decide a game properly or don't decide it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably thick, but I don't quite get the problem. The way it used to be, before OT, a team got 2 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. Chris suggests that now teams should get 3 points for a win instead of two. I don't understand how that's any different in principle. All games ARE worth the same; they're worth 3 if you win and 1 if you tie and 0 if you lose.

The idea is that a tie is worth something, but not as much as a win. What's so unfair about that?

Chris's extra point (3 for a win instead of the old 2-point system) is added because teams of the feeling that teams need a stronger incentive to 'go for the win' in order to avoid the tedium of two teams 'playing for the tie.' You'd still have occasions where both teams are playing for a tie, but not nearly as often as under the old, pre-OT system.

The reason the idiotic NHL didn't go for Chris's idea instead of introducing OT in the first place, was the feeling that awarding 3 points would destroy the record books, since a team with a mere 50 wins would now have 150 points. But this is a false problem. First, the steady bloating of the number of regular season games has already distorted team win records, as when Detroit beat out the 1978 Habs' record for regular season points a few years back while playing several more games. Second, you can just put an asterisk in the record books, indicating that a different system was adopted.

The NHL should have implemented Chris's plan long ago instead of embarking upon a process of continual fandangling with the rules in order to get around ties.

And yes, THE INSTIGATOR RULE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ADOPTED and is one of the dumbest rules in memory. A great example of which you should be conservative in your approach to rules changes. But that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably thick, but I don't quite get the problem. The way it used to be, before OT, a team got 2 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. Chris suggests that now teams should get 3 points for a win instead of two. I don't understand how that's any different in principle. All games ARE worth the same; they're worth 3 if you win and 1 if you tie and 0 if you lose.

What Bar is saying CC is that some games would end in tie and the value of those games would be two. Chris's system does have merit, because at least the teams that couldn't decide the issue would be awarded one less point for their game as opposed to awarding them a bonus point as they do currently. Chris said no overtime, no shoot-out, so you either get three or split a pair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Bar is saying CC is that some games would end in tie and the value of those games would be two. Chris's system does have merit, because at least the teams that couldn't decide the issue would be awarded one less point for their game as opposed to awarding them a bonus point as they do currently. Chris said no overtime, no shoot-out, so you either get three or split a pair.

Ah, I guess I see the point...but I also fail to see what the big deal is if some games are 'worth' two points divided equally between two teams if they tie, while other games are worth three points allocated to a team that wins. In fact you could argue that this reflects the merits of Chris's system - i.e., it maximizes incentives to WIN instead of tie, because games that are WON are worth more than games that are tied. Getting hung up on the technical question of 'all games being worth the same' seems to be losing the forest for the trees. Chris's system is straightforward, does not reward teams for losing (unlike our current system), avoids silly gimmicks such as 3-on-3 OT or shootouts (unlike our current system), and would generally give a much stronger incentive for teams to gun for a win than the current system does. Sounds like a good outcome to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're really interested in giving 3pts for the winner, give each team 1.5pts for a tie, that way the games are still worth more than they currently are, AND games remain having the same pts throughout the league.

Myself I'd prefer the below system:

3pts - Regulation Win

2pts - OT/Shootout Win

1pts - OT/Shootout Loss

If no shootout and allowed ties give each team 1.5 pts for a tie.

Edited by bar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're really interested in giving 3pts for the winner, give each team 1.5pts for a tie, that way the games are still worth more than they currently are, AND games remain having the same pts throughout the league.

Myself I'd prefer the below system:

3pts - Regulation Win

2pts - OT/Shootout Win

1pts - OT/Shootout Loss

If no shootout and allowed ties give each team 1.5 pts for a tie.

I'd be all for it. I'm with Revvv on this one, tie games are BOOOOOOORRRRRIIIIING even if played hard. I would never have put my name on the season tickets waiting list it they would still run the tie games thing.

P.S. Stop the "Chris System thing" They use it in soccer since... since... I don't even know since when cuz it's been too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Revvv on this one, tie games are BOOOOOOORRRRRIIIIING even if played hard. I would never have put my name on the season tickets waiting list it they would still run the tie games thing.

Maybe they could offer up a balloon ride in lieu of throwing darts, playing rock,paper stone or the shoot-out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the teams should get 100 dollars worth of poker chips for every goal. If the game ends in a tie, the captain and assistants put on little visor hats and sit at a poker table in the middle of the ice. They play texas hold-em elimination tournament until only one is left. The winner is credited with a goal, and his team gets the win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the teams should get 100 dollars worth of poker chips for every goal. If the game ends in a tie, the captain and assistants put on little visor hats and sit at a poker table in the middle of the ice. They play texas hold-em elimination tournament until only one is left. The winner is credited with a goal, and his team gets the win.

I'm all in...

GO HABS GO!

:hlogo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they could offer up a balloon ride in lieu of throwing darts, playing rock,paper stone or the shoot-out.

IMO, all these options are better and more entertaining than a tie game...

I think that the teams should get 100 dollars worth of poker chips for every goal. If the game ends in a tie, the captain and assistants put on little visor hats and sit at a poker table in the middle of the ice. They play texas hold-em elimination tournament until only one is left. The winner is credited with a goal, and his team gets the win.

Are you guys saying that shootouts are decided by chance like poker or without any hockey skills (darts, RPS) ??

Wanna kill the already agonising goaltender market, then get rid of the shootouts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat puzzled from fans reaction on the board Re: that article. If it weren't for the shootout, Montreal would more than likely NOT have made the post-season last year? The real talent lies in the shootout, and it should remain that way. If they went to IIHF rules for the shootout (after 3 shooters you can recycle the same guys), then I would be pissed off...but they made it right putting the proper restrictions on. Also, the fact is ongoing overtime is meant to stay with playoff hockey and if it became like that for regular season games, players would be way too tired...(especially on back to back nights). I have been to multiple games since the shootout has been introduced, and the fans are on the tip of their seats or STANDING in anticipation. My only suggestion would be to make the shootout out of 5 shooters instead of 3. Otherwise, sorry guys.. the article was an interesting read, but the shootout is here to stay. I don't mind the points system and I think the NHL has done a spectacular job giving the fans what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, all these options are better and more entertaining than a tie game...

Are you guys saying that shootouts are decided by chance like poker or without any hockey skills (darts, RPS) ??

Actually, I was a pretty good dart player in my day. Yes is the answer to your question. Hockey games are being decided outside the realm of "hockey". I guess some would be all for baseball being decided with the home run derby and hockey with your two best fighters going at it. I just don't want the circus to come through during a sporting event. Yes, hockey is a form of entertainment, but it has to stay in its own realm or you will be quickly featuring the do-do bird.

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...