Patrick Kane

Report: Overtime Changes Coming Soon?

Big news in advance of the NHL Awards in Las Vegas on Tuesday.

In a vote on Monday, the NHLPA and league general managers recommended overtime change to five minutes of three-on-three for regular season games. The move still needs to be approved by the NHL’s Board of Governors to be implemented.

17 thoughts on “Report: Overtime Changes Coming Soon?

  1. I understand the probability of scoring 3 on 3 is higher than 4 on 4 and I understand the objective is to settle the outcome without going to the shootout, and I don’t really even mind the shootout but I know most “hockey purists” do not like the game decided by the shootout … I understand all that perfectly well … what I don’t understand is the reluctance to go back to ending the game in a tie. Actually, I do understand the reluctance but I think it baloney and another example of the NHL hierarchy out of touch with the audience they are trying to reach/please. One the one hand though, pissing off the hockey purists won’t drive them away because the love the game in spite of the dunderheads in charge, so their logic is to give a good show to the casual fan who they think will lose interest without a winner of the contest. Maybe their correct, but I think they arrive at their opinion in a most dunderheaded way … and that’s what I find aggravating. Hence the new twist of OT play … can goalie v goalie be far behind?

  2. Big Indian,,they don’t like that it results in too many shootouts.

    Ebony Raptor …Like your idea of the old fashioned tie but too many teams played for the tie and third period action suffered badly..remember?

    3 on 3 seems kinda gimmicky, like its a farce, a comedy on ice.

    Why not do as they do in the playoffs…no fooling around, sudden death OT. The occasional marathan will happen but so what. I suspect its to do with TV dollars as no TV time outs on OT…so have ’em, big deal. Maybe they cannnot. Big bonus is that there would be no loser points awarded. Probably not going to happen though.

  3. Yeah, I guess if I’d really stopped to think (which I often do not do) it would have been obvious that the shootout situation is what they are trying to get away from. I agree with the earlier post too in that the 3 on 3 seems a bit gimmicky.

  4. The league is trying to reduce the number of shoot outs (a good thing), by going with 3-on-3.

    With the Hawks speed and high skill, this is a good thing! More speed = More wins!

    I think it would be exciting to see skilled players with that much open ice!

  5. This is a radical idea I know, but here goes…..

    If tied after 3rd period, each team is on a 5 on 3 power play for 2 minutes, this is similar to college football where each team starts at the opposing 25 yard line….

    Let the discussion begin…….

  6. Given that most hockey fans are not “purists”, I have trouble understanding the insistence on getting rid of the shootout. Look around at the crowds (or the NBCSN Share Your Cup Moment videos) – you’ll see lots of small families (too expensive for big families to attend), boyfriend-girlfriend, husband-wife, kiss cam, jumbotron, short skirt ice scrapers, cheerleaders, bands during intermission, … Sorry, but hockey “purism” has been fading away since the NHL expanded from 6 teams in the 60s.

    BTW, When was the last time you saw a fan walk out of the arena or turn off the tv (let alone sit down) once the shootout drama started?

  7. I like 3points for a win in regulation and 2 points for a win in OT or SO and 1 point for the OT or SO loss. Then there is an incentive to win in regulation.

  8. I’ve been watching hockey for 41 years, coached at junior level, the shoot out is awesome to watch, maybe tough way to decide a game for purists but I personally enjoy it, great to see moves, especially Kaner. I would have preferred 4 on 4 or just go straight to shoot out 3 on 3 is a joke!

  9. Goldenbladz – nail/head. With a regulation win worth 3 points it would significantly increase the incentive of not playing for the tie in regulation. Especially late in the season where every point is valuable. What is the ongoing fascination with a win being worth 2 points?

    The shootout is stupid. It would be like ending a football game with a field-goal kick off or a basketball game with a dunk contest. My vote is the 3 point plan with however many vs. however many 3/4/whatever for 5 mins of OT after which it ends in a tie.

    Reg Win – 3 pts
    OT Win – 2 pts
    OT Loss – 1 pt
    OT Tie – 1 point each

  10. Golden, I like that scoring if the shootout stays. DTP, although I hate shootouts deciding games, you are absolutely right. Shootouts are a casual fan favorite.

  11. Goldenbladz and Chevy I very much like those concepts. I have always hated the shootouts more than anything, and often leave the UC before they get started. I can always watch at home soon enough.

    Lets Go Hawks!

  12. Phil…you leave the UC before the shootout starts? Really! Thats nuts.

    …so having stated that I will opine this …3 on 3 must have been inspired by a circus act the managers saw while in Vegas. Are you seriously going to take all those endless drills and practices, the defensive two way hockey, the harsh punishments for making the tiniest of errors, all the analytics, the advanced analytics, the time and effort spent on tactics and strategy, the contracts, the draft, the cap, and then blow it all to hell in some kind of circus act to determine the winner of the game?

  13. Sorry Mining Man, but the shoot out for me just is not a good way to decide a game. I was always content with a tie as each team was equally rewarded. Leaving a game at the end of the OT was always an option. Sometimes I would stay and watch though. It was usually a 50-50 deal depending on how I felt at the time. With so many games played in the regular season, the sooner the games end the better. This would be good for the players and the fans.

    Lets Go Hawks!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *