Dan Spiegel: [Video] Scott Clemmensen On Shootouts: "Call Me A Hypocrite"

Good for him... Absolutely correct, it has no business in the game!!

Good for him... Absolutely correct, it has no business in the game!!
- phSabres84

I tend to agree.

Yup... can't stand 'em. Haven't since day one.

Extend OT's, have a few minutes of 3-on-3, and change the point system(Doubt Bettman will). Would make shootouts more rare and more exciting again.


I'll still take shootouts over ties though.

U Hypocrite.................

Dan Spiegel:
- spiegs13[Video] Scott Clemmensen On Shootouts: "Call Me A Hypocrite"

Agree with him.

We're never going to get them back, but I like ties.

Dan Spiegel:
- spiegs13[Video] Scott Clemmensen On Shootouts: "Call Me A Hypocrite"

Good ol clemmer telling it like it is

Dan Spiegel:
- spiegs13[Video] Scott Clemmensen On Shootouts: "Call Me A Hypocrite"

The NHL had ties for 100 years, and there was no issue.

Even if you have a shootout, you're deciding the outcome of a game of hockey by not playing hockey. So, in reality what you have are ties, and then a team gets a bonus point for being better in a gimmick. Because the hockey game, the one that went on for 65 minutes, and had hitting, passing, defense and two teams playing a hockey game...that ended in a tie.

Now you're deciding a winner of that game by doing something other than playing the sport of hockey.

But I do really agree with the 3 point system, if we have to have the Godawful gimmick. 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win and 1 for a win via shootout.

Didn't win? You don't get jack poop.

The NHL had ties for 100 years, and there was no issue.

Even if you have a shootout, you're deciding the outcome of a game of hockey by not playing hockey. So, in reality what you have are ties, and then a team gets a bonus point for being better in a gimmick. Because the hockey game, the one that went on for 65 minutes, and had hitting, passing, defense and two teams playing a hockey game...that ended in a tie.

Now you're deciding a winner of that game by doing something other than playing the sport of hockey.

But I do really agree with the 3 point system, if we have to have the Godawful gimmick. 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win and 1 for a win via shootout.

Didn't win? You don't get jack poop.
- Jsaquella

See I like ties for this reason. And if at the end of 65 minutes the Flyers and the Penguins fight tooth and nail and neither team wins, how does that not ENHANCE the rivalry? To leave it at "we both hate each other, but we'll have to wait until next time to settle it".

I like old school: 2 for a win, split the points for a tie. I don't remember seeing too many lax OTs when there were ties. A cursory glance shows that in 97-98 for example, 220 games went to OT. 166 were ties and 54 (~25%) were won in OT. What the NHL wouldn't give to have 54 OT winners now.

See I like ties for this reason. And if at the end of 65 minutes the Flyers and the Penguins fight tooth and nail and neither team wins, how does that not ENHANCE the rivalry? To leave it at "we both hate each other, but we'll have to wait until next time to settle it".
- Morris

Exactly. You just had a 65 minute war, and now you're going to "settle" it by playing ping pong?

I'll be honest, I don;t watch the shootouts, unless my team is involved, because it means a standings point.

The other night, Chicago & San Jose went into the shoot out and I turned the tv off. Didn'tt even bother watching.

Better than an unsatisfying tie game

nothing worse than a "neutral" finish

Better than an unsatisfying tie game

nothing worse than a "neutral" finish
- TheGame316

Agreed!

Agreed!
- Crazycaboose

Agree to Disagree!

Shootouts are bad, but teams playing for a tie from the middle of the 2nd on were worse.

3 points for a regulation win, keep everything else as is unless you add another 5 minutes of 3 on 3.

Shootouts are bad, but teams playing for a tie from the middle of the 2nd on were worse.

3 points for a regulation win, keep everything else as is unless you add another 5 minutes of 3 on 3.
- golfingsince

I was curious, so I checked back as far as NHL.com keeps stats (97-98) and that year 220 games went to OT. 166 were ties and 54 (~25%) were won in OT.

This year so far we've had 172 games past regulation, and 105 of them when to the shootout and 67 (39%) were won in OT.

You might extrapolate that more teams "played for the tie" when there were ties, but imo playing for a shootout (which still happens in the vast majority) is worse.

Look, make OT ten minutes long. Why not? Where is the harm? As far as the three pt system, I'm torn. I think if a team wins in regulation, they should get 3 pts. If they win in OT, they get 2. As long as they make it to OT, give them one. That extra point for winning in OT is going to make OT a very exciting ten minutes of hockey. Maybe make it 3 on 3. I prefer the tie to a shootout. I think a win in hockey not based on hockey is wrong. It degrades the game.

Plus, I've pooped myself like 3 times during intense shootouts

The NHL had ties for 100 years, and there was no issue.

Even if you have a shootout, you're deciding the outcome of a game of hockey by not playing hockey. So, in reality what you have are ties, and then a team gets a bonus point for being better in a gimmick. Because the hockey game, the one that went on for 65 minutes, and had hitting, passing, defense and two teams playing a hockey game...that ended in a tie.

Now you're deciding a winner of that game by doing something other than playing the sport of hockey.

But I do really agree with the 3 point system, if we have to have the Godawful gimmick. 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win and 1 for a win via shootout.

Didn't win? You don't get jack poop.
- Jsaquella

This is perfect, except I think both teams should at least get a pt for getting to OT. Getting two to win in OT will make the OT period much funner. Teams won't sit back.

Exactly. You just had a 65 minute war, and now you're going to "settle" it by playing ping pong?

I'll be honest, I don;t watch the shootouts, unless my team is involved, because it means a standings point.

The other night, Chicago & San Jose went into the shoot out and I turned the tv off. Didn'tt even bother watching.
- Jsaquella

Also.. if Thomas keeps on playing the way he is and we do well and are in the race, I wonder if we should bring him back for another season, bring in a goaltender like Elliot or Hiller, let Marky play in the AHL for one more season, and work our goaltending situation out like that.

"It's Gimmicky"
... says the guy wearing the painted cowboy hat as player of the game (like a lot of teams seem to be doing with championship belts, jackets, stupid helmets, etc)

Extend OT's, have a few minutes of 3-on-3, and change the point system(Doubt Bettman will). Would make shootouts more rare and more exciting again.


I'll still take shootouts over ties though.
- Nucker101

What was so bad about a tie game?

What was so bad about a tie game?
- mlindsay

Everything. Ties are awful. If the options are shootout or tie, I will take the shootout every time. However, I would prefer a 4 on 4 overtime and then 3 on 3 overtime to happen at some point.

ties>>>>>>>shootouts
everything>>>>>>that inexplicable "made it to overtime" point

I was curious, so I checked back as far as NHL.com keeps stats (97-98) and that year 220 games went to OT. 166 were ties and 54 (~25%) were won in OT.

This year so far we've had 172 games past regulation, and 105 of them when to the shootout and 67 (39%) were won in OT.

You might extrapolate that more teams "played for the tie" when there were ties, but imo playing for a shootout (which still happens in the vast majority) is worse.
- Morris

Well a higher percentage of OT games today are finished in OT so isn't that a good thing?