This is a draft of the letter I am sending to several GMs and Governors regarding my opinions on the overtime issue they are examining. I do not for a second expect much to come of this letter, but my hope is, if enough of us make these points, the message will somehow get through and the system will somehow be fixed sooner than later. I am very curious as to your opinions and any edits you think would make it better...
To those attending the GMs meetings,
I am quite happy to hear you have decided to focus a part of your time and attention to the state of how to decide games that are tied after 60 minutes. I am of the belief that the problem you are trying to fix is way easier than the proposals I am hearing. Below find my opinions, and some opinions of Hockeybuzz readers, on how fixing the point system can fix the issues that concern you without touching the format of the current overtime.
The Shootout...
Many purists among us hate the shootout, right? Well, kind of. I don't hate watching a player go one on one with a goalie. When I was a kid, and penalty shots were more rare, I loved the penalty shot! I loved the skills competitions on All-Star weekends BECAUSE we got to see more penalty shot type scenarios. One on one...Player vs. Goalie is awesome stuff. And I would challenge any real hockey fan to say otherwise.
I believe what we really hate is the shootout determining an otherwise well-fought hockey game. The fact that this team sport has an individual ending. What we hate is the fact teams have made or not made the playoffs because of shootouts. That part feels ridiculous.
Five minute overtimes.
We are hearing of a push to play a 4 on 4 ten minute overtime instead of the current five minute overtime. The logic behind this being most playoff games end in the first ten minutes. I find this argument is relatively specious. How a team approaches a playoff overtime when they know an actual goal will have to be scored to end it, and how a team approaches a 5, 10, 15, or even 20 minute overtime if they know they can just play shutdown hockey and get to a shootout are two completely different scenarios. Good shootout teams know this well.
To prove this out, all you have to do is watch an NHL game in late March or early April and watch teams play conservative hockey and protect their "one point for a loss" for most of, if not the ENTIRE, third period and the five minute overtime. That kind of hockey is not our best foot forward. It is terrible to watch. You all have done too fine of a job opening up this game (eliminating the red line, clutching and grabbing, etc) to have 1/3rd of your games played this way.
When the overtime arrives, sure it is harder to play shutdown 4 on 4, but still....teams have figured it out. And some of the GMs do realize this of course. And I know there are discussions about going to a format with a 5 minute 4 on 4 OT then a 5 minute 3 on 3 OT. Then a shootout...
I understand the compromise to a degree, but 3 on 3 after 65 minutes of play is really only a slightly better option and while it is more like a real hockey ending than a shootout it still feels "gimmicky" and the NHLPA will of course all worry that this extra time is inviting injury. Three on three hockey is tough and requires a ton of skating. Going to this after already playing 65 minutes is risky. And besides all of that, should the NHL really be borrowing overtime concepts from men's beer leagues? What's next, the floating blueline?
I bring back the same argument about the shootout. I love 3 on 3 hockey in the rare instances we see it, but I don't want it deciding a game. And more importantly...who makes the playoffs.
Change the Motivation. Not the system
The solution is really simple. Keep it as it is but change how points are given out.
3 points for regulation win. 2 points for an OT win. 1 point for a shootout win.
I know many will complain about the fact teams will no longer get a point for an overtime loss. To which I say the following, but this is a sport. There are winners and there are losers.
And yes...the other argument will be this system will widen the disparity between teams. The bad teams get to hang around more now because they get those 1 points for losing. My first reaction to that is," Really? It has gotten so bad that we really have to give teams points to keep our races interesting?"
Ok, of course I do get it and I too love how many teams are in the race..on paper...but in actuality many teams AREN'T in the race, because we are watching the actual games in our great playoff races be compromised by teams trying to "game the system" and play for the tie.
And is it REALLY better this way for the lesser teams?
Look at the teams in the wildcard races right now... In the East a team like the Carolina Hurricanes are only 8 points out of playoff spot. Not too bad, right? Not really, because while they sit only 8 games back they would have to leap frog over FIVE teams to get in. For example, tonight the Canes play the Rangers, who are not one of those five teams...but are only 3 points ahead of those teams. The Hurricane fans will be scoreboard watching as well because one game tonight features 2 of the 5 teams they are chasing. Detroit plays Columbus. Those teams playing each other should be a good thing to the Caniacs because only 1 of those teams can win, right? Not really. They could go to overtime and both teams they are chasing could come away with points.
So I ask you...How does this benefit the lesser teams?
For me it always comes back to the basics. How would I explain this to my eight-year-old. Well son, we are hoping for our team win and the Detroit/Columbus game to be decided in regulation.
And it is worse. This system has actually changed the way we cheer for our teams. I believe the top teams will finish atop their divisions no matter how the points are decided, but for the majority of the teams who are on the bubble a huge key to their success is "does my team know how to preserve the tie?" How many of you have felt that mindset? With every loss in OT or shootout you say to yourself, "My team is better because they got the one point." How is this in the spirit of competition?
Now if the Hurricanes could get 3 points for winning in regulation and one of either Columbus or Detroit was guaranteed no points tonight, with the other perhaps only getting 2 for winning in OT or 1 for winning in the shootout suddenly the playoff race for the Carolina Hurricanes is exciting again. And not only is the race exciting, but each individual game is exciting as the Canes would give all they had to win the game by the end of the 60 minutes. Even if they are tied after the third both the Canes and Rangers are still going all out to win in the OT and get 2 points, etc. How is that not a win/win?
The REAL Problem...
This time of year we all wake up and look at the standings. It is part of the joy of being a fan. We go to NHL.com and see where our team sits. It keeps us happy a few moments at our jobs.
There was a time we would see our team trailing another team by 5 points with a game-in-hand and say to ourselves, "Well, ok, if we win that game-in-hand we are only 3 points back. Then if we win two games and they lose two we are ahead." Then we look at the schedule for both teams and figure out if we will win 2 or they will lose 2. That is how this should work. Looking at the standings and doing these calculations is the stuff hope is made of for the hockey optimists.
That this has been taken away is the real issue. The real problem holding back our sport and watering it down. I don't want to say, "Well if we win 2 games in regulation or lose 4 in OT and then lose two games in regulation...." Ridiculous, right?
How much more interesting would looking at the standings be if you knew your team could get 3 points for a regulation win knowing that if the team you were chasing lost they would get none. Or if they were playing a tough team you might be saying, well the Red Wings and Jackets might go to OT and only one of them will get 2 or 1?
Suddenly more teams get to say things like, "We control our own fate."
That would be HUGE.
In conclusion....
Respectfully GMs and Governors. The problem with the overtimes is NOT about the WAY we decide a winner. The problem is the game is suffering because teams are playing more and more "not to lose" versus playing to win. That is the real issue here. The playoff races need to have hope generated by the excitement of our teams winning games instead of hoping the teams we are chasing have their games decide in regulation.
I know the fear is that a few teams will run away with it. I am saying those few teams will run away with it anyway. For the rest, for the vast majority of teams, "anyone can truly win on any night" and you have the ability to give that statement actual meaning again. There is a competition committee that looks at the rules of the games but the system I am putting out there truly looks at the thrill of the competition. We need to play for something more than this system provides. Reward victories. Give hope.
In my opinion it simply doesn't make sense not to go this way.
Thank you for your time and consideration.