and bring tie games back? for (frank)'s sake.

I couldn't disagree more.
- Pat1993

Unsurprising.


I lived 37 years with ties. I am fine with them. IF a team really wants that extra point, they have to fight for it, not a shootout crapsoot gimme point.

Earn it as a team or not at all...

would be entertaining... the only thing I hate though is that OT only lasts 5 min., and I'm not a big fan of shootouts. really wish the league would look into making OT longer.
- Pat1993

i don't really like shootouts either. the 3 on 3 really is exciting with all the room out there. i actually never minded ties. i'd vote for 5 minutes of 3 on 3 and if nobody scores it's a tie.

i don't really like shootouts either. the 3 on 3 really is exciting with all the room out there. i actually never minded ties. i'd vote for 5 minutes of 3 on 3 and if nobody scores it's a tie.
- kicksave856

I find a tie is very "meh" for a result, and you'd probably see a lot of teams play "safer" hockey and just settle for that.

I'd see it as taking a huge step backwards, but hey, what the (frank) do I know.

i don't really like shootouts either. the 3 on 3 really is exciting with all the room out there. i actually never minded ties. i'd vote for 5 minutes of 3 on 3 and if nobody scores it's a tie.
- kicksave856

Sometimes teams don't deserve to win

Unsurprising.


I lived 37 years with ties. I am fine with them. IF a team really wants that extra point, they have to fight for it, not a shootout crapsoot gimme point.

Earn it as a team or not at all...
- Mashadar

people have lived through horrible things for years, that isn't really an argument.

I find a tie is very "meh" for a result, and you'd probably see a lot of teams play "safer" hockey and just settle for that.

I'd see it as taking a huge step backwards, but hey, what the (frank) do I know.
- Pat1993

i get that some people don't want ties. it just never really bothered me because it was just every game is worth 2 points and you have to fight for them. if you win the game you get both, if you lose the game you get neither, if you can manage a tie you split them. it still affected the standings in a way that makes sense and all so it still was important to get that point.

it actually kind of felt to me like they diluted a formula that was working just fine when they changed the overtime rules. but i get that other people might feel different.

Sometimes teams don't deserve to win
- mr.peanut

i'm willing to take a loss in OT!

i get that some people don't want ties. it just never really bothered me because it was just every game is worth 2 points and you have to fight for them. if you win the game you get both, if you lose the game you get neither, if you can manage a tie you split them. it still affected the standings in a way that makes sense and all so it still was important to get that point.

it actually kind of felt to me like they diluted a formula that was working just fine when they changed the overtime rules. but i get that other people might feel different.
- kicksave856

I don't want ties.
Ascots are where it's at.

i'm willing to take a loss in OT!
- kicksave856

Enjoy a humiliating shoot out loss instead

I don't want ties.
Ascots are where it's at.
- jugkope

Enjoy a humiliating shoot out loss instead
- mr.peanut

that's fine too!

i get that some people don't want ties. it just never really bothered me because it was just every game is worth 2 points and you have to fight for them. if you win the game you get both, if you lose the game you get neither, if you can manage a tie you split them. it still affected the standings in a way that makes sense and all so it still was important to get that point.

it actually kind of felt to me like they diluted a formula that was working just fine when they changed the overtime rules. but i get that other people might feel different.
- kicksave856

perhaps you're right and that it did work, I'm just not convinced going back to ties would necessarily work the same way again.

personally I'd go with a 10 min. OT, and then if there's no winner just go to the shootout to determine the winner. most games are already determined in OT, prolonging it would surely make shootouts a very rare occurrence.

I don't want ties.
Ascots are where it's at.
- jugkope

perhaps you're right and that it did work, I'm just not convinced going back to ties would necessarily work the same way again.

personally I'd go with a 10 min. OT, and then if there's no winner just go to the shootout to determine the winner. most games are already determined in OT, prolonging it would surely make shootouts a very rare occurrence.
- Pat1993

i think we're stuck with it the way it is anyway.

I find a tie is very "meh" for a result, and you'd probably see a lot of teams play "safer" hockey and just settle for that.

I'd see it as taking a huge step backwards, but hey, what the (frank) do I know.
- Pat1993

I think knowing you have to fight for the extra point, not have to rely on the shootout, would force more pressure on teams to either win in regulation or push harder in OT.

*shrug*

Perspective. Like bumholes, everyone has one.

i think we're stuck with it the way it is anyway.
- kicksave856

seems to be the case. they can't even get rid of those ridiculous salary cap loopholes for teams going to the playoffs, they surely aren't looking at that either lol.

I think knowing you have to fight for the extra point, not have to rely on the shootout, would force more pressure on teams to either win in regulation or push harder in OT.

*shrug*

Perspective. Like bumholes, everyone has one.
- Mashadar

yeah, it's true that's it's another logical way of looking at it, especially for teams in a playoff race that absolutely need those points.

perhaps you're right and that it did work, I'm just not convinced going back to ties would necessarily work the same way again.

personally I'd go with a 10 min. OT, and then if there's no winner just go to the shootout to determine the winner. most games are already determined in OT, prolonging it would surely make shootouts a very rare occurrence.
- Pat1993

I get that. I'd me more into a longer OT, even if it is 3v3.

But I think the purpose of 5 mins and Shootout was to shorten the game down, make it easier for travel.

10 mins+ shootout almost puts it back to potentially 20 minutes.

I get that. I'd me more into a longer OT, even if it is 3v3.

But I think the purpose of 5 mins and Shootout was to shorten the game down, make it easier for travel.

10 mins+ shootout almost puts it back to potentially 20 minutes.
- Mashadar

while I get what you're saying, would those few potential extra minutes really make it harder for teams to travel..?

i think we're stuck with it the way it is anyway.
- kicksave856

Personally, I think it i silly that there are different OT rules in the regular season and the playoffs. I am not advocating for infinite OT til someone scores in regular season, but what makes that more exciting / warranted in the playoffs?

The inconsistency baffles me.

Personally, I think it i silly that there are different OT rules in the regular season and the playoffs. I am not advocating for infinite OT til someone scores in regular season, but what makes that more exciting / warranted in the playoffs?

The inconsistency baffles me.
- Mashadar

to me it's pretty obvious that playoff hockey is the most meaningful hockey to play, the stakes can't get any higher. not sure why you're wondering about this

while I get what you're saying, would those few potential extra minutes really make it harder for teams to travel..?
- Pat1993

Well, most OT games end quickly, or fairly quickly, so maybe?

Anyways, that was one of their initial reasons, maybe it was just PR bullpoop.

i just read that OT was 10 minutes of 5 on 5 until 1983. i did not know that.

Well, most OT games end quickly, or fairly quickly, so maybe?

Anyways, that was one of their initial reasons, maybe it was just PR bullpoop.
- Mashadar

for a few minutes? yeah I'd call bullpoop on that one lol