Hockey Den: The Premier Hockey Card and Memorabilia Destination
Visit us at www.hockeyden.net for a tribute to Canada box break of 07-08 ITG Oh Canada! Watch and win a prize!
__________________________________________________________________________________

It has finally done what many have worried it could do: The shootout has sent a team into the playoffs…

I really shouldn't be bothered by this in the least as technically we could blame any Rangers loss this season for why they didn't make the playoffs as those two additional points would have put them ahead of Philly and made the implications of yesterday’s game null and void. I KNOW this, and yet I'm still put off by it.

Don't get me wrong. I have absolutely no vested interest in whether the Flyers or Rangers had have been the team to win their way in. My interest does lie, however, in seeing the best possible competition, and I have never believed that the shootout meets that criteria. Is it entertaining? Exciting? Not for me in particular but many people seem to get pretty jacked up for it. Here's the rub though: exciting and entertaining do not necessarily equate with competative. If they did then the NBA could do slam dunks to settle ties and baseball could have home run derbys. This doesn't happen though. What does? Rather than turning to something that represents only a small fraction of the sport as a whole to decide the game they keep playing until there is a decisive winner...

Bottom line is that regardless of how entertaining it is, the shootout is a staged-gimmick for an extra point that does not do justice to the effort it took both teams to get there. Yesterday it was a gimmick that opened the playoff door for one team and slammed it in the face of another. Why do we need the shootout anyways? The NHL is a league where you can "lose" in three different ways: in regulation, in OT and in the shootout. Again, three ways to LOSE...except two of those three times you still get a point. Not really losing when you're rewarded for it, is it? Used to be kids that it was 2 for a win, 1 for a tie, until a little over a decade ago when people grew tired of teams not going for it in OT for fear of losing out on the tie point. Solution? If a game goes to OT both teams get the point and play for the extra. Eventually this carried over to the shootout results also. My take on this? Bandaid solutions to a motivation problem that in the abstract shouldn’t be an issue to begin with. After all, these guys and teams make enough money off the backs of fans that they should be gunning to win in any situation. Unfortunately, this is the optimal situation, not the reality, and the way the system is now it can be strategic to back off in regulation to land the tie.

So what’s the solution? Seems obvious to me though that if you really want to motivate a team to win you guaran-damn-tee there will be a winner who gets two points and a LOSER WHO GETS NONE!!! Picture it: No sitting back to get into OT so you can at least get one point. No running an All Star game gimmick that in ways makes the league less serious to take (And yes, its an even larger flaw in the IIHF where you can lose a championship on it). No rewarding the loser. Someone wins the game on the terms it was meant to be won on: gritty up and down the ice hockey.

In my opinion it’s that simple when it comes to the NHL. Play until someone wins. The only other reasonable option? Settle for a tie and split the points. Since the latter is unlikely given that it would be perceived as moving backwards, let's stick with ongoing sudden death overtime. Only drastic "adjustment": keep it 4 on 4 for the balance of extra time. I'm of the opinion that the amount of times you go past 20 minutes would be outweighed by the times you don't.

Now, people can make the following arguments and would not be incorrect as far as arguing why this can work in other sports but not in hockey: a) Sudden death OT can work in the NBA because the in-game points scoring makes it less likely that multiple OTs would need to be held. In hockey full periods may happen without ANY scoring!; b) Extra Innings work in baseball because it’s a less physically demanding sport in the sense that the vast majority of players remain stationary much of the time whereas hockey players are constantly moving; and c) The networks want set schedules for programming and the potential for ongoing overtime throws that off.

Let's address "a" first. While the potential for multiple OTs is more present in hockey, the ability to end them quicker is also! Remember, OT in basketball is guaranteed for a set time, which to the best of my knowledge is 15 minutes. In the NHL though, hockey is sudden death! Sure it could go 20, but it could also go 2. The pressure of lose and no points in an overtime played four on four would lend itself to single OT sessions the majority of the time in my opinion as you’ve got more space on the ice, more speed and guys playing to win, not playing “not to lose”. As for "b", unlimited OT in hockey being more physically taxing than in baseball, it would certainly be a factor. However, in a four on four OT one has to remember that you've essentially got five lines as opposed to the four you work with in regulation. This allows for more changes to be made, fresher players on the ice and more scoring opportunities. What’s more, teams will also be under pressure to finish more sooner than later so they don't run down their lineup, which taken even a step back will put more pressure on them to finish in regulation so they don't even have to run their guys down more! Now will a multiple OT game occur on occasion? Sure, but I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't be as often as one would think, and I'd imagine the viewing satisfaction of the fans would be greater than with the shootout as rarely do you get multiple sudden death OTs without a number of "jump out of your seat" moments. Argument “c”? True as it is, do you honestly think you’re going to get a complaint out of CBC, TSN or SportsNet about NHL overruns? No bloody way! I’d even make the same argument for Versus. Might it be a bit more problematic for local coverage? Sure, but they have to make the same accommodations for baseball coverage so they’d find a way to deal. Where the opposition would come from would be bigger networks in the US like ESPN and NBC….except they’re a non-issue right now aren’t they in that one doesn’t cover you anymore and the other is getting you for free!!! So NHL, why worry about winning ESPN back or the network you’re providing free programming for? Grow yourself from the roots and show some backbone by saying “Here’s our sport the way it’s meant to be played! If you don’t like it, you’re missing out!”. It’s called supporting the people who watch, not bending over backwards to impress the people who don’t pay attention to you…

Where's the incentive under the system I’m proposing to go into overtime as opposed to where we're at now with the shootout? There isn't any as far as I see. Allowing for full sudden death OT in the regular season not only removes the gimmick aspect of the shootout and the rewarding of teams for losing, but also addresses the issue of playing not to lose and boring overtime. If you're really concerned about giving the fans what they want and drawing fans to the product then give them TRUE competition, not bells and whistles. If you don't believe me then imagine Philly and New York going past just 5 minutes of sudden death overtime with the playoffs on the line knowing they're there until someone WINS the right and get back to me.

Cheers!

Shawn Gates
[email protected]
Twitter: ShawnHockeybuzz
Facebook: Shawn Gates

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Visit us at www.hockeyden.net for a tribute to Canada box break of 07-08 ITG Oh Canada! Watch and win a prize!

_____________________________________________________________________________________


Previous “Who Am I?” Articles

#1

#2

#3



Previous “WHAT IF…?” Articles

#1 What If The NHL Contracted To 24 Teams?

#2 What If Quebec Traded Lindros To The Rangers Instead Of The Flyers?

#3 What If Calgary Drafted Martin Brodeur Instead Of Trevor Kidd?

#3a What If Calgary Drafted Martin Brodeur Instead Of Trevor Kidd?: A RESPONSE

#4 What If The WHA Never Existed?

#5 What If The Position Of Rover Had Not Been Eliminated?

#6 What If Pittsburgh Had Not Been Awarded A Team In 1967?

#7 What If Steve Smith Had Not Scored In His Own Net In Game 7?

#8 What If The NHL Had a Cross-Conference Playoff Structure?

#9 What If The NHL Asked For Fan Ideas For Improving The Game??

#10 What If Henderson Had Missed The Net In Game 8?

#11 What If You Could Sneak Into A Stanley Cup Celebration?

#12 What If The NHL Returned To Quebec City?

#13 What if Toronto and Edmonton Had Traded Teams in 1981?

#14 What if You Could Create Your Own Hockey Dream Team?

#15 What if An Active Player in the NHL “Came Out” as Gay?

#16 You Could Assemble Your Own Fantasy Pick-up Hockey Team?

#17 Hockey Had A Champions League Tournament?

#18 Team "X" Did NOT Make Trade "Y" At The Deadline?


Previous “According to Twitter” Articles

Olympic Gold Medal Game

Olympic Hockey

Kovalchuk Trade


Previous “Humpday Hockey Videos”

January 20, 2010: Pain for Pleasure

January 27, 2010: National Anthems

February 3, 2010: Dion Phaneuf

February 10, 2010: Hockey Fans



Previous “Who Knew?” Articles
#1: Gordie Howe

#2: The Zamboni

#3: Maurice “The Rocket” Richard

#4: Ron Hextall

#5: Stanley Cup Abuse, Neglect and Versatility

#6: The Puck

#7: Don Cherry

#8: Cam Neely

#9: The Early Years of Les Canadiens

#10: Hockey Superstitions!

#11: Olympic Hockey Pt1



Previous “Town Without A Team” Articles

Booger Hollow, Arkansas

Hell, Michigan



Previous “Hockey Psychology” Articles

State Dependent Learning

Arousal and Performance

Depression