Why is there still OTL points?

[lawnboy1977]

I dont understand why the league got rid of ties, but a team still gets points if it loses in overtime, to me that is stupid. Does anyone have a good explanation for that?

[Eleven]

No explanation, but a proposed solution: No points at all for overtime or shootout loss, and only one point for a shootout win. Still two points for a regulation time or OT win. That way, teams have an incentive to play for the win in regulation or OT, but the team that plays for the shootout doesn't get full points. Also, a shootout (which isn't real hockey) doesn't get treated the same as a real hockey win. For the "victim" team who loses the shootout and gets no points? Well, that's the reward for not getting it done in 65 minutes.

 

The thought I had before the shootout era recently began was borrowed from soccer: three points for a win, one point for a tie, none for a loss (or one for an OT loss if it has to be done that way). Same thing: gives more incentive for the win.

 

Best I can think of with no OT (which is my personal favorite): three for a win, one for a tie, none for a loss, that's it. Works all over the world, somehow. You'd be amazed at how a team looking for a playoff position would play in a tied game in the 3d period.

[lawnboy1977]

No explanation, but a proposed solution: No points at all for overtime or shootout loss, and only one point for a shootout win. Still two points for a regulation time or OT win. That way, teams have an incentive to play for the win in regulation or OT, but the team that plays for the shootout doesn't get full points. Also, a shootout (which isn't real hockey) doesn't get treated the same as a real hockey win. For the "victim" team who loses the shootout and gets no points? Well, that's the reward for not getting it done in 65 minutes.

 

The thought I had before the shootout era recently began was borrowed from soccer: three points for a win, one point for a tie, none for a loss (or one for an OT loss if it has to be done that way). Same thing: gives more incentive for the win.

 

Best I can think of with no OT (which is my personal favorite): three for a win, one for a tie, none for a loss, that's it. Works all over the world, somehow. You'd be amazed at how a team looking for a playoff position would play in a tied game in the 3d period.

What does that mean its not real hockey? Is it because its exciting thats its not real hockey? I'm out of the loop on this one I guess. I'm not trying to start anything I just don't understand what that quote means. I think the shootout is great ainly because the NHL had WAAAAAAY too many tie games in the past, and there was no way they would go to a sudden death OT. Something had to be done to eliminate the ties. I just think its stupid that a team can still earn points even thouhg they lose the game.

[Eleven]

What does that mean its not real hockey? Is it because its exciting thats its not real hockey?

A shootout isn't real hockey because there are no passes, defenders, checks, etc. It's just one shooter and one goaltender. I agree that it's exciting, by the way, and a reasonable and efficient way to decide a game if we're not going to have any ties. But it isn't quite the same as team vs. team.

[Taro T]

What does that mean its not real hockey?  Is it because its exciting thats its not real hockey?  I'm out of the loop on this one I guess. I'm not trying to start anything I just don't understand what that quote means.  I think the shootout is great ainly because the NHL had WAAAAAAY too many tie games in the past, and there was no way they would go to a sudden death OT.  Something had to be done to eliminate the ties.  I just think its stupid that a team can still earn points even thouhg they lose the game.

I agree with Eleven that the shootout is not "real hockey". It is a component of hockey and I do not like seeing games decided by essentially an individual skills competition. It has nothing to do with it being exciting or not, the issue is that you are deciding a TEAM game which has many components to it by a test of a single skill. You could just as easily decide the game by 2 on 1's, speed skating, body checks, fights, etc. If you HAVE to decide the game by a skills contest, how about using a modified college football overtime. Give each team a 5 on 4 2 minute powerplay. Whoever scores quicker on their power play wins. If no one scores, give each team a 5 on 3, w/ same set up. No one scores on that, keep repeating it until a winner emerges. Penalties on short handed team would be assessed as normally for the 5 on 4. If you are down to 3 skaters, the other team gets a penalty shot at that point. While this is still taking away large components of the game, at least you are still measuring teams on TEAM skills, not individual.

 

You wouldn't decide a baseball game by a home run contest, nor a football game by a field goal contest. I see no legitimate reason to decide a hockey game by a shootout. The reason for a short overtime followed by a shootout is purely for television. Television stations do not sell advertising for overtime because it is an uncertain event. They could have a full overtime with ads conditionally sold, but don't for whatever reason. Television also does not want to play a full overtime period because it messes up the schedule following the game.

 

If you want to reduce ties without making a mockery of the rules or the game, you could go to a system where regulation wins are worth 3 points. If the game is tied at the end of regulation, you go to a full 20 minute overtime. You could have it set up with a full Zamboni run before the OT (preferred method) or just a scraping followed by another (if necessary) at the 10 minute mark (to reduce time to play the OT). If someone wins in OT, they receive 2 points. The loser would get nothing in either situation. For the handful of games that remain tied at the end of OT, you give both teams 1 point or if you are concerned that teams will dog it in an effort to maintain the 1 point for the tie, you give neither team a point.

 

Overtime playoff hockey is the most exciting situation in all of sports. The purist in me does not like the regular season having a different set of rules than the post season. I also do not like going to 4 on 4 in overtime for the reasons already stated.

[BuffalOhio]

I was dreading the shootout last night. With the lineup of the Penguins and the way Fleury was playing, I didn't think Buffalo would win in a shootout. Thank God for Hecht's Hacks!

[DrunkenSabre]

i think we would have won the shootout. a shootout against a team who's not only not won a game but also lost twice in overtime? not exactly scarey.

[JujuFish]

You wouldn't decide a baseball game by a home run contest, nor a football game by a field goal contest. I see no legitimate reason to decide a hockey game by a shootout.

If we were going to decide it like baseball, there would be a potential for a limitless number of overtime periods. As far as football is concerned, hockey emulates football in that there is a sudden death OT period. It merely goes beyond that to eliminate ties. So, the sports are hardly comparable.

[JujuFish]

No explanation, but a proposed solution: No points at all for overtime or shootout loss, and only one point for a shootout win. Still two points for a regulation time or OT win. That way, teams have an incentive to play for the win in regulation or OT, but the team that plays for the shootout doesn't get full points. Also, a shootout (which isn't real hockey) doesn't get treated the same as a real hockey win. For the "victim" team who loses the shootout and gets no points? Well, that's the reward for not getting it done in 65 minutes.

 

The thought I had before the shootout era recently began was borrowed from soccer: three points for a win, one point for a tie, none for a loss (or one for an OT loss if it has to be done that way). Same thing: gives more incentive for the win.

 

Best I can think of with no OT (which is my personal favorite): three for a win, one for a tie, none for a loss, that's it. Works all over the world, somehow. You'd be amazed at how a team looking for a playoff position would play in a tied game in the 3d period.

You confuse me. You advocate a point for a tie, with no OT, yet you don't advocate a point for a loss in OT or shootout? The only reason there would be either of these situations is if there is a tie at the end of regulation, hence by your support would garner each team a point, win or loss. :huh:

[Taro T]

If we were going to decide it like baseball, there would be a potential for a limitless number of overtime periods.  As far as football is concerned, hockey emulates football in that there is a sudden death OT period.  It merely goes beyond that to eliminate ties.  So, the sports are hardly comparable.

Football doesn't change its rules in OT. Baseball doesn't change its rules in OT. Why should hockey change its rules? (I know why it does (TV), my question is why it should.)

 

How is football "hardly comparable"? It plays a single sudden death overtime during the regular season. If a game is tied at the end of OT, the game remains a tie. I'm missing something.

[JujuFish]

Football doesn't change its rules in OT. Baseball doesn't change its rules in OT. Why should hockey change its rules? (I know why it does (TV), my question is why it should.)

 

How is football "hardly comparable"? It plays a single sudden death overtime during the regular season. If a game is tied at the end of OT, the game remains a tie. I'm missing something.

I was referring to comparing hockey to baseball and football. They are different sports, they go by different rules. Players would collapse from exhaustion if we played continual overtime periods to settle games. Personally, I don't like ties in football, but that's what the rules are. Also, the rules are changed overtime for football. College football as completely different in overtime than in regulation, and in professional football, there are plenty of times where one team never gets a shot playing offense to win the game. Also, there are two timeouts. And, with both football and baseball, you only have offense or defense out on the field at any one time, not both.

[Taro T]

I was referring to comparing hockey to baseball and football.  They are different sports, they go by different rules.  Players would collapse from exhaustion if we played continual overtime periods to settle games.  Personally, I don't like ties in football, but that's what the rules are.  Also, the rules are changed overtime for football.  College football as completely different in overtime than in regulation, and in professional football, there are plenty of times where one team never gets a shot playing offense to win the game.  Also, there are two timeouts.  And, with both football and baseball, you only have offense or defense out on the field at any one time, not both.

 

I didn't suggest they play continual overtime in the regular season, but I would like to see a 20 minute overtime. Somehow I think professional athletes should be able to play 80 minutes. (By the way, I was at the No Goal game, no one was collapsing from exhaustion during it.) Giving a team 2 timeouts in overtime is not changing the rules of football, it is actually a continuation of them. In regulation time you get 3 TO's per half, OT is 1/2 of a half thus you get half as many (1.5 rounded up to 2). I assumed that since I described NFL OT and not college OT you would have realized I was referring to pro football. The fact that a team may not get a possession in NFL OT does not imply that the rules have been changed.

 

There have been several NHL OT games decided within 1 minute, I doubt that each team had offensive opportunities in many, if any, of these games. This doesn't make the OT any less legitimate.

 

I believe that the rules you use in the regular season should be the same ones you use in the post season. Stopping regular season overtime at the end of 1 OT period is not anywhere near the modifying the rules that going 4 on 4 and then to a shootout is. These other sports don't bastardize their rules to settle games tied after regulation. I still don't see why hockey should.

[JujuFish]

I didn't suggest they play continual overtime in the regular season, but I would like to see a 20 minute overtime.  Somehow I think professional athletes should be able to play 80 minutes.  (By the way, I was at the No Goal game, no one was collapsing from exhaustion during it.)  Giving a team 2 timeouts in overtime is not changing the rules of football, it is actually a continuation of them.  In regulation time you get 3 TO's per half, OT is 1/2 of a half thus you get half as many (1.5 rounded up to 2).  I assumed that since I described NFL OT and not college OT you would have realized I was referring to pro football.  The fact that a team may not get a possession in NFL OT does not imply that the rules have been changed. 

 

There have been several NHL OT games decided within 1 minute, I doubt that each team had offensive opportunities in many, if any, of these games.  This doesn't make the OT any less legitimate.

 

I believe that the rules you use in the regular season should be the same ones you use in the post season.  Stopping regular season overtime at the end of 1 OT period is not anywhere near the modifying the rules that going 4 on 4 and then to a shootout is.  These other sports don't bastardize their rules to settle games tied after regulation.  I still don't see why hockey should.

First, I'm not trying to defend the shootout. I'm just trying to point out that hockey is not football or baseball and shouldn't be compared with them. Also, concerning the argument about how some OT games end in under a minute, while this is true, possession of the puck doesn't happen because of pure luck.

[Boo]

I like the shootout, However, if I made the rules hockey would be played 5 on 5 until there was a winner. Every game, just like the playoffs.

[Eleven]

Well, I enjoyed the shootout tonight--indeed it was exciting, and I'm glad the Sabres won, but it still is not "real hockey." Actually, it seems kind of gimmicky and bush-league, kind of like the XFL "race for the football." I don't hate it, but I didn't hate tie games, either.