Okay, I have a shootout idea...
If the game remains tied after 10 minutes of sudden death overtime, then go to a shootout. However, the game is counted in the points as if was a tie- 1-1 split. However, there is still a shootout, but it is used as a tiebreaker in the standings. simply measure shootouts as a percentage of the ones you win, and use that to break standings ties, but don't count it as a point.
2007-03-11 10:18:18 · 9 answers · asked by The Big Box 6 in Sports ➔ Hockey
I think the final scores should appear like this...
Devils 1
Leafs 1 SOW
with the standings point system remaining as it is...
btw, I hate the shootout... Hockey is/was a simple game with simple rules.. and here we are screwing around with all the rules to make it comfortable for some of you to watch. If some of you Americans don't understand the game, you aren't fans to begin with and will never watch hockey regularly... why is Bettman adjusting the rules for you..?
Imagine if baseball went to a homerun durby after 12 innings, basketball have a 3pt shootout after overtime, football have longest punt kickoff... sounds pretty stupid huh?? well thats how the shootout sounds to hockey fans that has been watching for over 10-20 years...
Sorry... as you can see, this whole shootout thingy has finally gotten to me...
2007-03-11 11:14:46 · answer #1 · answered by Virus Type V 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The idea deserves some merit. However, there was no problem until a moron tried to fix something that wasn't broken. I have a better idea, get rid of the shootout. 2 points for a win, 0 for a loss, 1 for a tie. No shootout, 5 minutes of 4 on 4 OT in the reg. season, 20 minutes 5 on 5 playoffs, and no shootout. You win, you win. You lose, you lose. You tie, it sucks but you tie.
2007-03-13 15:43:49 · answer #2 · answered by danthemanmi81 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the concept of a one-point game is now outdated and should be ditched. It makes sense to award a point if the game ends in a tie, but that can't happen anymore. With shootouts, there is a clearly-defined winner and loser; hockey should just go to the same standings system used in every other sport (how many games have you won?). This would make the sport much more accessible to casual fans, especially in areas which are newer to the sport. Also, it gets rid of the sense that you didn't "really lose" if you lost a shootout, which would in turn lend credibility to the shootout itself.
2007-03-11 17:07:43 · answer #3 · answered by starsonmymind 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I kinda like how that's now, yet while they have been to alter it, that could be an marvelous theory. It certainly might end plenty speedier with all of that open ice. The goalie might nonetheless could desire to be appropriate in a three on 3 concern merely as he might 4 on 4 or 5 on 5. a minimum of with the shootout, it brings interior the main exciting 2nd in hockey. it is so seldom we get to confirm a penalty shot, so it rather is exciting to confirm the shootout in specific circumstances. The followers are continually on their ft and into it for the duration of the whole shootout. i would not replace it perfect now.
2016-10-01 23:07:50 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The whole point of the shootout is to create a winner, and a loser. To make the game matter. In your plan, the winner is not much of a winner, and same goes for the loser. It would only matter if the standings end up tied, which happens only rarely. I do not like that.
2007-03-11 10:36:13 · answer #5 · answered by West Coaster 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you shouldnt get a point till after overtime
2007-03-13 09:42:31 · answer #6 · answered by timdadevilsfan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not a big fan of the shootout either...
2007-03-13 03:25:21 · answer #7 · answered by 闔家拎 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Best idea I have heard yet.
2007-03-11 10:29:44 · answer #8 · answered by Bob Loblaw 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No youre plan is dumb
2007-03-11 10:21:09 · answer #9 · answered by JOEY WHEELS 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋