OT - NHL looking at 3 on 3 in OT

Submitted by stubob on August 20th, 2010 at 11:28 AM


And long changes for OT, which sounds like a good idea.

Personally, I think the points are the problem.  Both teams are playing not to lose in OT, so they play conservatively to keep their point.  I'm not sure how to deal with it, though.  Any situation that ends up with a tie-breaker would likely end with both teams playing to get to the tie-breaker.



August 20th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^

Yeah, once you get to OT you get a point unless you switch goalies or something I think.

3 on 3 sounds like a terrible idea.

EDIT: If you pull the goalie in OT and lose while he's out you lose the point.

turd ferguson

August 20th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^

Every game should be worth the same number of points.  Even if we aren't worried about collusion in the NHL (where teams find ways to get close games into overtime in order to increase their expected points from 1.0 to 1.5 or so), there at least should be as much incentive to break a tie in the final minutes of a game as there is to maintain it.  Plus, there's just something strange about some games counting for more than other games do.


August 20th, 2010 at 11:37 AM ^

3 on 3 in OT sounds like it would be really fun to watch.  They could also award 3 points for win, or maybe 0 points for a tie, though that would be a major change.


August 20th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^

The NHL is trying way too hard to cater to people who don't really care about hockey.  The best part of the NHL is the intensity of the playoffs.  You can watch a couple minutes of a game and tell if it's regular season or playoffs.

I think the best solution is looking at the points system.  Perhaps you go to 2 pts. for a win, 1 pt. for an OT win, and nothing for an OT loss.  Then overtime becomes two teams fighting over the one point left.  It would also increase the desperation in the final minutes of regulation.


August 20th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^

I would hate to see 3 on 3 in OT. It might be alright for the regular season, but I want 5 on 5 in the playoffs. Those double and triple overtime games are what make the NHL playoffs so great.


August 20th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^

As many people have mentioned, regular season hockey and playoff hockey are different. I actually generally like what the NHL has done with the OT issues. In the regular season they try to get the game to a final result (5 min 4v4, then shootout). With no ice cut. This takes max 15 minutes, and keeps the TV people happy. 

However, for the playoffs, the teams play hockey. Straight up 5 on 5 hockey. 20 minute periods, Ice cuts, everything. I like this a lot better than say, soccer where a playoff game/world cup/whatever goes to a shootout. I like that to win a hockey game in the playoffs you win a HOCKEY GAME, not a shootout. (not a comment on soccer, i dunno how to "fix" soccer, just using it as an example)

Clarence Beeks

August 20th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^

To the OP's point about playing conservatively in overtime, there is some merit to that.  The teams that are better in shootouts do seem to tend to play more conservatively in overtime.

Blue In NC

August 20th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^

I don't see anything wrong with 4 on 4 in OT, I would just make it more like 10 minutes instead of 5.  There are a decent amount of scoring chances when it's 4 on 4 and if you extended it to 10 minutes, you could avoid a decent amount of shootouts (also maybe making some games shorter instead of longer).  

For me, 4 on 4 in OT is my favorite time of the game as the D really get involved and there is more room to skate.  

If they go 3 on 3, won't some teams play 2 D with 1 F and we may lose some of the dynamic passing.


August 20th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^

They have to get rid of the overtime loss point.  A team is rewarded because it took longer for them to lose?  I don't get the rationale for having an overtime loss point.  Regulation wins should be 3 points as well. 

Clarence Beeks

August 20th, 2010 at 5:32 PM ^

I disagree about completely eliminating the overtime loss point, at least if you are talking about going to three points.  It should be regulation win = 3 points, overtime/shootout win = 2 points, overtime/shootout loss = 1 point.  There is just no logical reason why an extra point should magically appear the minute the game goes to overtime.

The rationale for going to the extra point for the overtime/shootout loss, which came before they went to the shootout format, was that it would encourage teams to play more aggressively in overtime since they had already secured the "tie" point.  It lost a lot of its importance when they added the shootout.

E.L. blue fan

August 20th, 2010 at 7:33 PM ^

that I just came up with and it probably makes no sense. If the game goes to OT how about one team gets a 2 minute 5 on 3. If they score on it they win, if the other team kills it they win. Home team gets to pick what they want to do. It doesn't make a ton of sense but it would be really exciting and apparently that is what the NHL is going for. 

And I also agree that a regulation win should be 3 points, an overtime win 2 and an OT loss should be one.