Messages

Forum Index : NHL Betting : Messages
Author: [NHL Betting] Topic: Time For 3 On 3 Overtime
Polar_Bear
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Polar_Bear
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 24292
Location: Ontario
#1
Posted: 3/10/2012 6:15:36 PM

The shootout always has been and always will be a side show and a horrible way to end a hockey game.

What makes hockey great and puts it on it's own plateau is that it is the ultimate team sport and the shootout destroys that. I have seen some 3 on 3 Overtime play a couple of times this year and in both cases it was incredible to watch, and much more exciting than the shootout. If time is a factor then skip the 4 on 4 process and go right to 3 on 3, at least that way it is still being settled in a team manner. Play 10 minutes of 3 on 3 which will make it very, very hard pressed for any game to remain tied as this presents many odd man rushes and great scoring chances. If somehow. someway a game is still tied then go to the side show I guess, but it should not be needed as keeping pucks out 3 on 3 is an impossibility for any length of time.

For penalties, so they do not flat out decide the game, instead of taking a man away and making it 3 on 2. which is pretty much an automatic goal you simply let the team on the powerplay ice another man and you blow the play dead when the 2 minutes has been served no matter where the puck is. You can then redrop the puck at centre ice and resume 3 on 3. They already keep a separate time for penalties so if a puck is crossing the line as the penalty ends they can use that time to determine if the penalty expired first or not.

Anyone else like this idea?

 

quote
oilfan1928 send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: Pinnacle Sports |
oilfan1928
Participation Meter
Prospect
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 433
Location: Alberta
#2
Posted: 3/10/2012 6:19:57 PM
I say they play 10 minutes, starting with 4 on 4, then if the game is still tied after the first 2 minutes of play, each team reduce one player and they play 3 on 3, 2 minutes still tied, 2 on 2 and so on. If it is still tied then sudden death shootout.
quote
oilfan1928 send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: Pinnacle Sports |
oilfan1928
Participation Meter
Prospect
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 433
Location: Alberta
#3
Posted: 3/10/2012 6:21:39 PM
Winner in reg 3 points, OT 2 points, SO 1 point. 
Loser in OT/SO 1 point.
quote
TDD send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
TDD
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4594
Location: Missouri
#4
Posted: 3/10/2012 6:24:49 PM
Ken Holland is with you PB.
quote
potvin send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
potvin
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 23435
Location: United States
#5
Posted: 3/10/2012 6:25:14 PM
does sound good, always hated games being decided by a skills competition,like the add a player for the pp also!
quote
in_the_black send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
in_the_black
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4544
Location: United States
#6
Posted: 3/10/2012 6:26:17 PM
Read an article about 3 on 3 OT yesterday.Ken Holland is supposed to pitch the idea at the GMs meeting.


Eric Duhatschek of the Globe and Mail reports Detroit GM Ken Holland will make an innovative overtime pitch to his brethren at next week’s general managers meetings.

Holland’s idea? Lengthen overtime to 10 minutes with an additional five-minute period of 3-on-3 hockey.

(Yes, that does sound pretty sweet.)

The reasoning for the pitch is simple. Holland figures playing 3-on-3 would open things up to the point where goals would “almost certainly” be scored and, should they not, the shootout would still come into effect — albeit with less regularity.

The timing of this pitch couldn’t be more appropriate. According to The Globe, 13.5 percent of NHL games were decided in shootouts this year, the second-highest total since the league introduced the format in 2005-06. Minnesota, for example, has gone to a shootout a league-high 15 times in 68 games, meaning 22 percent of all Wild contests have ended with a shootout.

It’s not surprising to see Holland at the forefront of lessening the shootout’s impact. He and several other GMs pioneered the 2010 rule change that saw regulation and overtime wins used as the first tiebreaker for league standings, with shootout wins being excluded.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/09/detroit-gm-holland-to-pitch-3-on-3-overtime-idea/



quote
Polar_Bear
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Polar_Bear
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 24292
Location: Ontario
#7
Posted: 3/10/2012 6:28:29 PM

The issue I see with 2 on 2 hockey is you risk not seeing either team do anything. If you leave a man back which you basically have to, then you have one player attacking two constantly. Plus then it kinda takes the team aspect out of it again to me.

I'm good with the 4 on 4 for some time though. However go right to the 3 on 3 and no overtime will last 10 minutes, and very seldom would they make it past the 5 minute mark as the 2 guys rushing get caught up ice all the time thus creating constant 2 on 1 breaks the other way.

I'm sure we all have different ideas of what's more entertaining. I just think we have to find more middle ground for entertainment to meet the team game concept.

quote
Polar_Bear
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Polar_Bear
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 24292
Location: Ontario
#8
Posted: 3/10/2012 6:33:47 PM
TDD. in the black...That is great news and with it coming from Ken Holland it has a real shot. I saw it twice this year and both times it was nothing short of frenetic and very exciting hockey.
quote
TDD send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
TDD
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4594
Location: Missouri
#9
Posted: 3/10/2012 7:18:53 PM
Today's goalies are so much better and athletic than years ago that I'm not sure that a conclusion is a given. However, I'm all for seeing some 3 on 3 play in OT.
 
So many possibilities in no particular order.......
 
Datsyuk, Zetterberg, & Lidstrom
Malkin, Crosby, & Letang
Toews, Kane, & Keith
Kopitar, Carter, & Doughty
Perry, Getzlaf, & Visnovsky
Marleau, Thornton, & Boyle
Sedin, Sedin, & Edler (I would love to see Kesler, Raymond, & Hansen. All forwards that can fly!)
Vanek, Pominville, & Ehrhoff
Parise, Kovalchuk, & Larsson
Tavares, Grabner, & Streit
Gaborik, Stepan, & Del Zotto
Stamkos, St. Louis, & Bergeron
Kessel, Grabovski, & Liles
McDonald, Oshie, & Pietrangelo
Ovechkin, Backstrom, & Carlson
Iginla, Jokinen, & Bouwmeester
Nash, Umberger, & Johnson
Eriksson, Ribeiro, & Goligoski
Stastny, Duchene, & Johnson
Koivu, Heatley, & Spurgeon
Legwand, Weber, & Suter (only team that might throw out 2 d-men at once)
Vrabata, Whitney, & Yandle
Staal, Skinner, & Faulk
Versteeg, Weiss, & Campbell
Pacioretty, Plekanec, & Subban
Spezza, Michalek, & Karlsson
Giroux, Jagr, & Timonen
Kane, Little, & Byfuglien
Hall, Eberle, & RNH (3 forwards)
Seguin, Bergeron, & Chara
quote
UnderDogs1979 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: Pinnacle Sports |
UnderDogs1979
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 3246
Location: Ontario
#10
Posted: 3/10/2012 7:21:44 PM

Either they go back to the old format with no shootouts, or have 4 on 4 overtime for 20 minute periods until someone scores. The odds of going past one 20 minute of overtime with that much open ice would be pretty rare. Especially if a team gets penalized and it becomes 4 on 3. I think 3 on 3 creates too much open ice and leads to leaving the goalie left to dry way too easily.

The excuse of having long games going a few extra periods would only excite the fans, even in the regular season. The players get paid so much money and could afford a little overtime, even if it's not paid! I'm not a fan of 3 point games and shootouts, so let's get rid of the skills competition and keep it for the All-Star game!

quote
BooBunny send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
BooBunny
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 7720
Location: Massachusetts
#11
Posted: 3/10/2012 7:43:11 PM

I am not in favor of long overtime in the regular season. I would be OK for 3 on 3 right out of the gate for 5 minutes (10 max but I think it is too long). I think if no-one wins the 3 on 3 each team gets 1 point in a tie. Same as the overtime loser. 2 point regulation win...2 point overtime win...1 point overtime loss...1 point tie.

The problem I think you have is that the casual fan in the U.S. probably loves the shootout and that is where most of the revenue is coming from unfortunately. My wife...for instance...who knows little about hockey always says "gotta love the shoot-out". I feel this is more a case in the fringe areas like Dallas...Phoenix...Tampa etc. I could be wrong on this but I think that this might be a potential sticking point.

Personally...I would like to see the shoot-out eliminated all together because...like you said...it takes the team aspect out of the game and is a sideshow for the prima-dona players.

 

 

quote
metalbill
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
metalbill
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3300
Location: Alberta
#12
Posted: 3/10/2012 8:58:24 PM
it's a 5 on 5 game, has been forever. you got 60, well 65 mins to win. if you can't win in this time, then go to a shootout. it's exciting and a quick way to end it. (can't have too many long games in the regular season)

when it's playoff time my opinion completely changes, 5 on 5 till the game ends. 4on4, 3on3 is pretty much pond hockey. imo

i can see why people don't like the shoot out, but for regular season, whatever i don't care.

nhl needs to go to the olympic size ice surface, i think it would open the game up a bit. players are alot bigger now a days.
quote
potvin send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
potvin
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 23435
Location: United States
#13
Posted: 3/10/2012 9:08:08 PM
metal, i love pond hockey,cant see olympic size ice either, the game is getting to girly as it is
quote
metalbill
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
metalbill
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3300
Location: Alberta
#14
Posted: 3/10/2012 10:23:50 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by potvin:

metal, i love pond hockey,cant see olympic size ice either, the game is getting to girly as it is
nobody loves old school hockey more than me man. i love fighting, hate the instigator rule etc... i'm not saying i wanna see olympic style hockey, i just think a bigger ice surface might open up the game. more room for the big guys. 

hell i don't mind a 1 nothin game, i love defence, but so many people keep bitchin about the lack of scoring, well give them more room to skate. too many penalties darn up the flow of the game, and doing something silly like changing the dimensions of the net,  well that's retarded. i think.

the game is a 5 on 5 game, keep it that way. scott stevens is one of my favorite players, if you like "girly" hockey, watch ringette ffs.
quote
potvin send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
potvin
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 23435
Location: United States
#15
Posted: 3/10/2012 10:34:51 PM
some of the best games i have seen were one-nothing,as the game goes on and any shot could be the winner and the defence(spelled it your way out of respect) sacrifices thier bodies, blocking shots, taking out thier man with a little extra, love it! couldnt be better, and i know from past conversations you like the old time game!
quote
metalbill
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
metalbill
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3300
Location: Alberta
#16
Posted: 3/10/2012 10:54:41 PM
potvin i don't mind change, if it's for the good of the game. they had to crack down on the hooking, holding b.s. now head shots, hitting from behind. and for the most part, it's all good. but why does everyone keep bringing up crazy ideas to improve the game? 

baseball has barely changed in over a hundred years, then instant replay is put in place and traditionalists are ready to go postal. just an example.

hockey is doing fine, only change i would like to see, is the no touch icing. easy, painless fix, most people won't notice it, and it is a big time dangerous play.
quote
Polar_Bear
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
Polar_Bear
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 24292
Location: Ontario
#17
Posted: 3/10/2012 11:08:49 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by metalbill:

potvin i don't mind change, if it's for the good of the game. they had to crack down on the hooking, holding b.s. now head shots, hitting from behind. and for the most part, it's all good. but why does everyone keep bringing up crazy ideas to improve the game? 

baseball has barely changed in over a hundred years, then instant replay is put in place and traditionalists are ready to go postal. just an example.

hockey is doing fine, only change i would like to see, is the no touch icing. easy, painless fix, most people won't notice it, and it is a big time dangerous play.
THe shootout was a crazy idea as was this garbage of giving a team a point for a loss. I would be very happy to see them go back to 60 minute hockey games ending in a tie rather than watch the sideshow that was put in place for people that are not even real hockey fans.
quote
metalbill
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
metalbill
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3300
Location: Alberta
#18
Posted: 3/10/2012 11:28:52 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by Polar_Bear:

THe shootout was a crazy idea as was this garbage of giving a team a point for a loss. I would be very happy to see them go back to 60 minute hockey games ending in a tie rather than watch the sideshow that was put in place for people that are not even real hockey fans.
ya wouldn't hurt my feelings if they went baseball style, ya win or lose. why do you get a point for losing? lol only reason i see is to keep the playoff race close till the end. hockey is too tough for reg. season double+ overtime games. i get what your saying about the casual fan thing. shoot out is a total bullshit way to decide a winner in hockey game. but for reg. i don't mind so much. how you get a point for LOSING is beyond me
quote
Forum Index : NHL Betting : Messages
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.