Shootouts to have a diminished role in deciding games?

[gmalis1]

GMs talk 3-on-3 play, extending OT to minimize shootouts at meetings - CBSSports.com

Any thoughts? One way or the other? Anyone like shootouts to decide games? How about how points should be distributed for regulation wins, OT wins/losses and shootout wins/losses?

There's no right answer yet...but I'm curious as to what you all think of this idea and how many points get awarded.

 

[anotheridiot]

I actually like shootouts. I mean the 7 period playoff game is one for the ages, but I dont think we need it in the regular season. I also dont think 5 minutes is really enough. Maybe playing 4 on 4 for 10 minutes would decide more games.

the only difference is records. I dont get why an overtime win counts as a win, but an overtime loss only counts as a tie. The general thought process seems to be get that point, especially on the road. I mean maybe the second dash for overtime losses does count more, it just seems like teams are content with getting a point and losing overtime should sting a little more. Maybe that would force teams to go harder.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

I'm fine with shootouts. Ties are a waste of time & continuous OT can be a problem for weeknights. I don't think they should use them for the playoffs but they 're fine for the reg season. Maybe they could change it so it's. 4 on 4 for the 1st OT then 3 on 3 for the 2nd OT, & then have the shootout after that. Wouldn't change things too much tho.

 

[JBM73]

I hate the idea of extending OT, but I'd be ok with OT as 3 on 3 instead of 4 on 4 in order to lessen the number of shootouts, or at least testing it out.

 

[anotheridiot]

college football route, 3 on 2 from the blue line in. Puck is cleared, switch sides.

Just sayin, could be alot worse than shootouts lol.

 

[gmalis1]

The point of the article was to reduce the number of shootouts, not necessarily eliminate them.

Personally, I don't want to see tie games return. But I also don't like the idea of a team getting extra bonus points for what turns out to be a skills competition.

What I liked about the article and felt was intriguing was that they would consider keeping the 4 on 4 OT, followed by a 3 on 3 OT, then a shootout.

And my thinking, as some of the comments below the article stated, was maybe giving 3 points for a natural win/zero for a natural loss, 2 points for an OT or shootout win/1point for an OT or shootout loss.

I would take it one step further. Three points for a natural or OT win/zero points to the loser. Two points to a shootout winner and one point to the loser. Would make the games more competitive when you have an all or nothing approach to the game. Right now teams seem to be content to getting at least a point. Winning in OT or a shootout just seems like a bonus.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

The point of the article was to reduce the number of shootouts, not necessarily eliminate them.

Personally, I don't want to see tie games return. But I also don't like the idea of a team getting extra bonus points for what turns out to be a skills competition.

What I liked about the article and felt was intriguing was that they would consider keeping the 4 on 4 OT, followed by a 3 on 3 OT, then a shootout.

And my thinking, as some of the comments below the article stated, was maybe giving 3 points for a natural win/zero for a natural loss, 2 points for an OT or shootout win/1point for an OT or shootout loss.

I would take it one step further. Three points for a natural or OT win/zero points to the loser. Two points to a shootout winner and one point to the loser. Would make the games more competitive when you have an all or nothing approach to the game. Right now teams seem to be content to getting at least a point. Winning in OT or a shootout just seems like a bonus.

I agree with the article. Can't bring ties back ties, can't have continuous OT's like the playoffs, and can't have so many shootouts. Seems like a good solution.

 

[averagejoe]

What I liked about the article and felt was intriguing was that they would consider keeping the 4 on 4 OT, followed by a 3 on 3 OT, then a shootout.

While I do think this is a cool idea, I just wonder how this will effect the health of some players? Top guys are playing 20-30 minutes a game in regulation. Add a more open style where players are sprinting up and down the ice, and I just wonder if guys will be cramping up, pulling hamstrings, or crashing into the pipes/boards ala Steve Stamkos.

 

[anotheridiot]

While I do think this is a cool idea, I just wonder how this will effect the health of some players? Top guys are playing 20-30 minutes a game in regulation. Add a more open style where players are sprinting up and down the ice, and I just wonder if guys will be cramping up, pulling hamstrings, or crashing into the pipes/boards ala Steve Stamkos.

Maybe it would force the coaches that are riding the thoroughbreds hard and putting them away wet to actually consider it and use his bench more. In all honesty, you leave them on the ice half the game and didnt win, maybe using your other players would decide the game differently and sometimes it would be in your favor.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

The shootout doesn't bother me.

It's just a simple solution to having multiple OT periods. Maybe just extend the OT to 10 minutes then. 3 on 3 seems kind of dumb to me.