CanucksCaptain Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Canucks had played on many shootout games this season and lost. To be honest, I'm starting to lose intersts on the shootouts. I found it very new and excited at first to see the shootout the first few seasons when it was introduced but now I really think it is stupid to decide a game on a shootout. It is equalilent to deciding a NBA game in a dunk contest or a baseball game in a homerun derby. Yes, it would be fun at first but we'll probably lose interest in a couple of years. Here is my idea: cut the season short to let's say a 72 games schedule and let them play 4 on 4 sudden death for the overtime until a team scores There will only be wins and loses for the standings. I don't like teams getting a single point when the games go into an overtime. I think this will reduce injuries and mileages on the players as well. We do not need an 82 games schedule. What are your thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AriGold Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Canucks had played on many shootout games this season and lost. To be honest, I've started to lose intersts on the shootouts. I found it very new and excited at first to see the shootout the first few seasons when it was introduced but now I really think it is stupid to decide a game on a shootout. It is equalilent to deciding a NBA game in a dunk contest or a baseball game in a homerun derby. Yes, it would be fun at first but we'll probably lose interest in a couple of years. Here is my idea: cut the season short to let's say a 72 games schedule and let them play 4 on 4 sudden death for the overtime until a team scores There will only be wins and loses for the standings. I don't like teams getting a single point when the games go into an overtime. I think this will reduce injuries and mileages on the players as well. We do not need an 82 games schedule. What are your thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JordanEberle Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Canucks had played on many shootout games this season and lost. To be honest, I'm starting to lose intersts on the shootouts. I found it very new and excited at first to see the shootout the first few seasons when it was introduced but now I really think it is stupid to decide a game on a shootout. It is equalilent to deciding a NBA game in a dunk contest or a baseball game in a homerun derby. Yes, it would be fun at first but we'll probably lose interest in a couple of years. Here is my idea: cut the season short to let's say a 72 games schedule and let them play 4 on 4 sudden death for the overtime until a team scores There will only be wins and loses for the standings. I don't like teams getting a single point when the games go into an overtime. I think this will reduce injuries and mileages on the players as well. We do not need an 82 games schedule. What are your thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrippledCanuck Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Eliminate Shootouts and for Overtime keep four on four. For wins and losses do the following : 1 Regulation Win 2pts/Regulation Loss 0pts 2 Overtime Win 2pts/Overtime Loss 0pts 3 Make overtime ties 1pt each. Giving a point for an overtime loss or a Shootout loss is basically rewarding failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Mauviette75 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 shootouts are horrible. id's say make it a three point system, 10 min of 4 on 4, no shootouts. 3 points for regulation win 2 for OT win 1 for tie 0 for loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zombieksa Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Make OT 10 min. 4v4 3 Reg. Win 2 OT win 1 OT loss/Tie 0 Reg. Loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizeman Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 How about 4 on 4 for five minutes. Then 3 on 3 for five minutes. I doubt many teams can survive the 3 on 3 without quality scoring chances. If not , then go to a shoot out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gragnanifan1 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 How about 4 on 4 for five minutes. Then 3 on 3 for five minutes. I doubt many teams can survive the 3 on 3 without quality scoring chances. If not , then go to a shoot out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Jane Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Overtime 10 Mins,,, Switch Ends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 5 minutes of 4 on 4, then 5 minutes of 3 on 3 3 points for regulation win 2 points for OT win 1 point for OT loss 0 points for regulation loss I've always wanted to see how 3 on 3 would work in the NHL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanucks1 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 How about 4 on 4 for five minutes. Then 3 on 3 for five minutes. I doubt many teams can survive the 3 on 3 without quality scoring chances. If not , then go to a shoot out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I'd like the step after 4v4 to be 3v3 are opposed to the shootout. Now that would make for some exciting hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrippledCanuck Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I'd like the step after 4v4 to be 3v3 are opposed to the shootout. Now that would make for some exciting hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I've always thought shootouts were way to common. I feel like shootouts should be a rather rare thing, like multiple overtimes in the playoffs. They're so common that it's no big deal when one happens, but I'd like it to be more of a cool, unique thing. EDIT: I like the three point system proposed by some posters. To clarify, I don't want shootouts completely gone from the game, I just want them to be more rare. I'd suggest having 10 minute 4 on 4 OT to lessen the chances of shootouts. If still no one scores in a 10 minute OT, then go to shootouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I concur , that would make for some fast paced exciting hockey. But what would happen if someone did something so horrible a penalty had to be called, would make for quite the debate on refs or when penalties should and shouldnt be called etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrippledCanuck Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Perhaps in a 3v3 situation if someone takes a penalty the opposing team gets to put an extra player on for the duration of the penalty. This would keep the player in the box, put his team shorthanded, and give the opposing team the powerplay they should be rightfully given due to the penalty being taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THERETOOL Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I think that 3 on 3 for 5 minutes would be the most logical .. adding time would not be something the nhl would want to do .. and with 3 on 3 youd be sure to get a goal .. lotta fun for the players too .. Id love to see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckofSteel Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Why not do what the NBA does? Continuous 5 minute overtimes, except after 2 OT's we go to a Shootout. Also, no more loser points!! Win= 2pts Lose= 0pts OT Win= 2pts OT Loss= 0pts Shootout Win= 2pts Shootout Loss= 0pts Eliminate loser points, only wins and losses!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsCanuck Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Just switch ends like in the 2nd. Easy fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 With 3v3, eventually it's just be 1 player who goes on offense, with 2 guys staying back to prevent 3/2v1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.