I Hate Shootouts
- Thread starter tbe
- Start date
When i'm paying $200 to go and watch a hockey game, i'm not interested walking out of the arena having the game end in a lousy tie. Instead of the shoot-out, i would have elected to extend the overtime period to 8 minutes, and if there was still a tie at the 5 minute mark, make it 3-on-3. Then, go for a shoot-out.
I think people will tire of shoot-outs once the novelty wears off, but it's still a heck of a lot better than a lousy tie game! When Pat Quinn said the other day that he hated shoot-outs so much and mentionned it was like having an NBA game ended by free throws or an NFL game ended by having QB's throwing the ball and hit targets, i felt like asking Pat if he'd mind helping us pay for our $200 tickets whenever a game would end tied.....i figure he wouldn't answer.
I think people will tire of shoot-outs once the novelty wears off, but it's still a heck of a lot better than a lousy tie game! When Pat Quinn said the other day that he hated shoot-outs so much and mentionned it was like having an NBA game ended by free throws or an NFL game ended by having QB's throwing the ball and hit targets, i felt like asking Pat if he'd mind helping us pay for our $200 tickets whenever a game would end tied.....i figure he wouldn't answer.
Shootouts are a joke. I left the arena at the last OHL game I saw as soon as the 4 on 4 overtime ended. Watching the Leaf-Sens game last week , I turned on Law & Order right after the 4 on 4. I have no problem with a tie, if the 65 minutes were exciting. Why not extend the overtime to 10 minutes?
Shootouts may settle tie games, but they're a terrible way to do so IMO. Whaddaya supposed to say to your stud stay-at-home defenceman, who's just logged 25 minutes of a 1-1 tie, killed penalties and broken up a couple of two-on-ones? "Thanks for coming out, you can watch the shootout in the clubhouse on TV?"
I thought hockey was a team game...
I thought hockey was a team game...
2cent said:They should take a step or 2 further. If there is still a tie, go to a 2-on-2, and then a 1-on-1, and then let the goalies battle it out. There will be a winner, guaranteed
2-on-2 and 1-on-1 seems unrealistic and some may even argue that 1-on-1 is like shootouts. There are teams that have a few super stars complimented by a few average players and there are teams that have no super stars but have a group of hard playing above average players. 1-on-1, just like shootouts, will make some highly unfair matchups(Imagine the Rangers if Pavel Bure was not injured. They'll have 2 excellent breakaway scorers in Bure an Jagr).
Anyway, I think the solution(at least a more fair solution) is a 10 min 3-on-3 (if there's a penalty then it's 3-on-2 but a minimum of 2 players have to be on the ice for each team) and keep it a tie if noone scores(each team gets a point for a tie and the winning team gets 2 points while the losing team gets nothing if someone scores in overtime). With all that space on the ice I doubt there would be any ties during the season.
Then again, this idea may encounter resistance by the NHLPA since their "poor members" theoretically MAY have to play 10 extra mins if there's a tie after regulation.
Speedo said:
you say, oh well you couldn't do it yourself within those 25 minutes and you can be happy to take the one point home with you.
the shootout is great. it changes the game- which was getting kinda boring over the last few years. too many ties since '99... the shootout adds a new dimension to the game.. it stirs the pot a little.. it forces GM's, Coaches, and players to all re-evaluate their strategies, and i believe it gives the fans a little extra 'bang for your buck'...
if we go back to the way things were- that's o.k. too. but something has to be done about all the tie games that occur... and as far as what i heard from the players, they don't want to play more than 5 minutes of overtime because their bodies can't handle 82 games in 6 months where they risk playing an extra period every single game. keep in mind this would be hard on your 'strongest players' and where them down as well as put them at great risk for injury as they are the ones that would be called to play that stupid 4on4, 3on3, 2on2 crap...
What's wrong with five more minutes of amped-up, four-on-four hockey?
I think the overtimes have been even better than they were before. It's disappointing that they now call a halt to proceedings to have a bunch of breakaways. You know, I liked the old Shootout that they used to do in intermissions of HNIC, but I never thought it was more exciting than the actual game was.
You'll never see baseball or the NFL go to gimmicks like that.
I think the overtimes have been even better than they were before. It's disappointing that they now call a halt to proceedings to have a bunch of breakaways. You know, I liked the old Shootout that they used to do in intermissions of HNIC, but I never thought it was more exciting than the actual game was.
You'll never see baseball or the NFL go to gimmicks like that.
So the Sens can't beat the Leafs in a playoff series and the Leafs can't beat the Sens in a shoot out.
Should make for an interesting playoffs.
Should make for an interesting playoffs.
21pro said:
That's just it, 21pro. He did do it himself within those 25 minutes. His job isn't to score goals.
21pro said:
But it's not "the game." It's simply a gimmick, a skills competition between just two facets of hockey -- a goalie and a goal-scorer.
Huh?
I always thought the point of a hockey game is to score a goal by the scorer into the goalie's net. If they're paid millions for their skills, they might as well do it.
Speedo said:
I always thought the point of a hockey game is to score a goal by the scorer into the goalie's net. If they're paid millions for their skills, they might as well do it.
altamagna said:
Well, you were wrong about the point of a hockey game. The point of a hockey game is to win.
A breakaway against a goaltender is actually something that is *rarely* done to help win a normal hockey game - they've chosen a skill-set that just isn't tested all that much. You might just as well have chosen hitting, faceoffs, shot-blocking, .....
It'd be like settling a baseball game with a homerun competition.
Me, I'd rather watch *hockey*.
i can say that i have never, ever played one season for a team where we didn't practice the shootout. now, i never played past junior, but, i am willing to bet that major junior, etc.. all practice shootouts from time to time, so why not let some of their skills be displayed in a game scenario. it was something that was practiced as a team... yes teamwork is involved.
they can practice face-offs, but you're stud defenceman who logs 25min. per game will never stand up for one...
why not allow for the best of these guys' skills to be displayed? and better yet, have their success/failure rely on how they can best arrange a team of players with varied degrees of skills and talents?
they can practice face-offs, but you're stud defenceman who logs 25min. per game will never stand up for one...
why not allow for the best of these guys' skills to be displayed? and better yet, have their success/failure rely on how they can best arrange a team of players with varied degrees of skills and talents?
FWIW.....extend the 4 on 4 overtime to 10 minutes, no stop time....
or increase the number of shooters to 5 from 3...
whatev.....I like the new NHL brand of hockey....as long as they stay with calling the obstruction fouls, players with the real skills(big and small in stature) of skating, stickhandling, and shooting will excel and be exciting to watch. IMHO
or increase the number of shooters to 5 from 3...
whatev.....I like the new NHL brand of hockey....as long as they stay with calling the obstruction fouls, players with the real skills(big and small in stature) of skating, stickhandling, and shooting will excel and be exciting to watch. IMHO
yeah, i guess it could be read either way... my only concern is that an extended overtime (say 10 or 20 minutes) would only put more wear and tear on the big guys and thereby putting them at an even greater risk for injury- these guys are the ones who get the most overtime play and are needed the most in an 82 game season. the shootout will result in far less injuries.
and if someone suggests that they do the 4on4, then 3on3, 2on2, etc.. thing, i think that also puts risk for injuring/wearing out the guys that will log all the ice. the nhl isn't as exciting without it's best players showing what they do best when they are full of energy. i personally think that they already are playing too much hockey.., but they need the 82 game schedule to support their current economical situation.
do you not find a shootout somewhat exciting?
and if someone suggests that they do the 4on4, then 3on3, 2on2, etc.. thing, i think that also puts risk for injuring/wearing out the guys that will log all the ice. the nhl isn't as exciting without it's best players showing what they do best when they are full of energy. i personally think that they already are playing too much hockey.., but they need the 82 game schedule to support their current economical situation.
do you not find a shootout somewhat exciting?
Similar threads
