Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted November 10, 2002 I lost this post the first time I wrote it, so I'm too annoyed to rewrite my whole rant. Basically, tie games suck, and the point for the overtime loss is something I'm not a huge fan of. And above all, having a win-lost-tied-overtime lost record is really long and contrived. Shootouts are popular in the minors, and get the fans interested. If the NHL wants to reach out more and get more people to come, maybe they would if the prospect of no winner is eliminated. My revision: three 20-minute periods with two 15-minute intermissions as always. If the score is tied at the end of regulation, there is a two-minute intermission followed a 10-minute sudden death overtime. If the score is still tied, go to a shootout as the final tiebreak. Each team takes five penalty shots, alternating back and forth between teams, and whoever scores the most of 5 wins. If the score is still tied, they begin the rotation again until a team does not answer their opponent's goal. This way, the record could be simplified from something like 12-5-3-2 to something like 14-8(2), with the parenthesized number indicated shootout losses. In this case it would be fitting to award a point for a shootout loss and two points for a regulation, overtime, or shootout win. What do you think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest treble charged Report post Posted November 10, 2002 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Shootouts are EVIL and should be stricken from the face of the Earth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted November 10, 2002 Shootouts aren't that bad. What about just doing overtime until there's a winner? Ties should be wiped off the face of the earth. Basketball: overtime until there's a winner Baseball: there's no tying in baseball Football: I don't even remember the last time there was a tie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest treble charged Report post Posted November 10, 2002 Okay, well, I've already said that I feel that shootouts are evil, and I'm going to leave it at that. You don't end a baseball game with a homerun derby. You don't end a basketball game with a 3 point competition. Anyway: Basketball: overtime until there's a winner There's less likely a chance that a basketball game will tied after an overtime period, so letting the game go until there's a winner is no big deal. Baseball: there's no tying in baseball *cough* This year's All-Star game *cough* Football: I don't even remember the last time there was a tie The NFL's version of sudden death OT is terribly unfair to whoever loses the coin-toss, as they just basically have to hope that their defence can hold the other team out of field goal range, so let's not look at them for solutions to solving the NHL's 'problem' with ties. Given the fact that I HATE HATE HATE shootouts as a way to end tie games, and having an endless OT would also not be a way to go (I mean, really, do we need to see Atlanta and Columbus go 7 OTs to see who can finish with over 30 points in the season?), I say just leave things the way they are, as ties are not really all that offensive, in my opinion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted November 10, 2002 I saw a game on ESPN Classic between Wake Forest and I-forget-who that went into several overtimes. Bud Selig is an idiot. Maybe they can adopt a version of the tennis tiebreak, and have successful shots be points for the team on offense and defended shots be points for the goaltender's team, get 7 points or a two-point margin thereafter. Unless it's the final game of a playoff series in which you'd just go into multiple overtimes. I just hate ties so so so much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted November 10, 2002 I don't have a problem with ties. I despise the "Overtime losses" stat, though, and I hate it even more that teams get a point for it. Hello? They LOST the goddamn game. It doesn't matter when they lost it, they still lost it. Losses have always been ZERO points, and they should be, whether the loss came in regulation or OT. Having seen shootouts when the AHL experimented with them, I don't like them. Games shouldn't be decided by gimmicks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest treble charged Report post Posted November 10, 2002 I don't really have a problem with the point for the OT loss, myself. In theory, it makes the OT more interesting, as teams already know they are guaranteed of at least the one point, so they won't play so defensively and will go for the goal that will give them the extra point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted November 10, 2002 I don't like the OT loss record the NHL put in a few years ago -- I still don't understand all those won/loss/tie numbers. I really don't care about the way football OTs are handled. Big deal if some team doesn't get a chance to win it in OT? They had 60 minutes beforehand to win... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest razazteca Report post Posted November 10, 2002 shoot outs work for Soccer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Phr33k Report post Posted November 10, 2002 The way they have it now is fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted November 10, 2002 Dr. Tom is right...a loss is a loss, no matter when. A win is a win, and a loss should be a loss. The stupid overtime loss points are making the Nashville Predators look less ridiculous, and that's bad. They've only won a single game and have like 8 points in the standings. Come on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JHawk Report post Posted November 10, 2002 Ties are bad in any sport, but less offensive than the shootout would be, IMO. I'd personally rather see both the NHL and the NFL have a full period for OT and call it a tie if still tied. I don't mind college football's OT setup, but I don't like that even if the defense holds, there's still a field goal opportunity. That's like rewarding the offense for shitty playcalling. Bud Selig is an idiot, but it's not his fault that the All-Star Game was poorly coached. He still should have told both managers "Who cares, get back out there" though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Leena Report post Posted November 10, 2002 I HATE that if you lose in OT, you still get a point. That's just retarded. I'm surprised that teams don't just pull their goalie in Interconference matchups... they've got nothing to lose. I understand that many teams used to play defensively in OT to make sure they earned a point... but this is just ridiculous. I think the NHL should copy from Soccer's scoring system... Win = 3 points Tie = 1 point Loss = 0 point That alone should give teams more incentive to try winning in OT. NO SHOOTOUTS! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest treble charged Report post Posted November 10, 2002 Football: I don't even remember the last time there was a tie Today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted November 10, 2002 Whoa- Czech Republic is some kind of prophet or something Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted November 11, 2002 Oh my God...the first tie since 1997 in the game that was supposed to, by the looks of the pregame show, be a big Michael Vick spectacular...do you see why ties are bad now? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted November 11, 2002 Who cares if an All-Star game is a tie. They could tie in NBA All-Star game and it wouldn't make a difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest redbaron51 Report post Posted November 11, 2002 A Quote from Brett Hull: You want to make the game a circus??? (His issue about Shootouts). The only reasonable sport to do shoot outs is soccer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Leena Report post Posted November 11, 2002 Why is it reasonable in soccer? I think it's stupid to end a game in a cheap way like that, after they run like crazy for 120 minutes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest redbaron51 Report post Posted November 11, 2002 its reasonable because you don't know when a team is going to score in over time. Having a plethora of overtime can go an extra 2-3 hours, especially in the world cup or the Euro cup. How about no overtime, except in playoffs, and in the end of regulation its a tie game Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest starvenger Report post Posted November 12, 2002 Leave the OT as it is, with the exception of maybe extending the OT to 10 minutes. The 4-on-4 that you see during that time is probably some of the most exciting. Penalty shots suck, period. It'd be like football doing 2-point converts or basketball doing free throws to decide a game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Slingshot Suplex Report post Posted November 13, 2002 I liked the shootout in the IHL and understand it's exciting but I really don't want to see it in the NHL as a tiebreaker.I'm with starvenger.....extend it to 10 minutes if necessary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Dr. Wrestlingphysics Report post Posted November 14, 2002 They only have shootouts in football (soccer) in knockout cup games, and that's only after extra time, and often a replay. They never (in normal professional leagues, maybe they do in some minor world leagues) have shootouts to decide standard league matches, a drawn game is a drawn game. Why all the tie hate anyway? 95% of the time, if teams are equal, there is no need to artificially decide a winner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CED Ordonez Report post Posted November 14, 2002 Somebody already said this, but I personally don't like the sudden death aspect of the NFL overtime, especially since it usually heavily favors the team who wins the coin toss. Also, it usually comes down to a shootout of sorts in the form of a field goal attempt. In some respects, two things that will help you immensely in an NFL sudden death OT: 1) A favorable coin flip and 2) A good FG kicker. Taking nothing from the offensive and defensive lines, but those two are the biggest elements in overtime from my perspective. Maybe during a season they could try out a 5 or 10 minute overtime period and see if that does any better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted November 14, 2002 I didn't say that a shootout should replace overtime, I said it should replace a tie. Ten minutes of overtime, four-on-four. No score after ten minutes, then go to a shootout. Each shot is either a point for the offense if successful or a point for the defense if it is not. First team to seven points or a margin of two earns a regulation/overtime goal, and two points in the standings. The losing team records a loss but earns one point in the standings. I hate tie games because I feel there should always be a decisive winner in a contest. That's why the War of 1812 bores me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Czech Republic Report post Posted November 14, 2002 Yeah and by the way I think they should paint the ice beyond the goal lines with some sort of team colors or artwork...it would just spruce things up a bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
