NHL fans, how would you feel if?

Question

the league decided that it would be a better motivating factor to deduct points in case of a tie rather that have a game decided by breakaways after a brief OT like they do now. I think they should play a full overtime period and if the game is tied, then each team loses a point.

I know that it isn't popular but think about it, I'd like to know how you feel the concept would impact the players and the game.

Answer 1

I'd agree, except in the case where both teams were trying to break the tie with equal effort.

I like overtime. I like the extra pressure when everyone's dog tired, the herculean effort it takes to make it happen under those conditions.

I see what you're saying about the extra pressure, but worry about that instance where the effort really is equal on both sides -- all out -- and both teams wind up getting penalized.

It's interesting to think about, though.

I think my perspective is skewed as a player. In terms of spectating, it makes a certain sense.

A lot of it depends on how much dramatic value you feel the shootout has, I suppose.

Answer 2

I kind of see your point. You want to see the teams play for a win and not a tie. But to see 2 teams penalized a point in the standings for "not trying hard enough to win" seems a bit ridiculous. Would a longer overtime period be better? How long should OT be? The shootout has a lot of pros and cons, but excitement a shootout produces cannot be denied.
How would such a rule change impact the players? They would think it sucks. Nothing like playing the game, doing your best, finishing the game in a tie and then finding out your work not only wasn't good enough to win, but was worse than a loss because you don't lose points for a loss. The fans would hate it too.

Answer 3

I see your point but I like how it is setup now, a 5 minute OT and then a shootout. Before the NHL did away with a Tie, I do think that players just played for the tie and the 1 point in the standings. So that's why the rule was changed. To deduct a point now just doesn't seem right, players are trying for the win.

Answer 4

Don't like it --- it potentially has the effect of making teams finish with negative points. That's crazy. Teams already play hard for the extra point---all it took was giving them a regulation tie point to make them think they had nothing to lose so they should go for it.
Play would get erratic and stupid--which is not fun hockey to watch. You'd have top notch players completely worn out by a quarter of the way through the schedule because they'd be triple shifting in the late 3rd and OT period and the quality of the game would really suffer later in the season and in the playoffs.

Answer 5

I truly believe that the players play to win. It would be demoralizing to take a point away for not being able to score in overtime. The fans would suffer too.

I'd rather see 3-on-3 for 10 minutes, or just the 1 point per team for the tie as opposed to taking away a point.

My $.02.

_

Answer 6

I also understand your point, but penalizing teams because the goalies were great or the game was too even, is not the answer either.

i say....Let there be ties!!!....scrap the whole shoot-out and go back to just the 5 min OT....

Answer 7

i didnt mind the shootouts last year but this year i hate them now, their are way to many shootouts and they should be out. have the overtime and if nobody wins then 0 points and if you win then you get your 2 points that the way it should be. and the losing team gets 0 points also in the overtime.

Answer 8

How about continuos OT. Then teams wouldn't want to be tired and would try to score. Just like the playoffs. I d olike the shootout though

Answer 9

Naaah. Don't like it. I would extend the OT to 10 minutes, though.
Then do the Shootout.

Answer 10

This reminds me of when the US networks decided to "tag" the puck with a lighted streak to make it easier to watch. Why mess with a perfectly good game?