Should there be Shootouts in the playoffs?

Answer 1

no way. a shootout is one on one. The cup is won as a team and should be lost as a team. what next? bring back the glowing puck?widen the net? If it aint broke , dont fix it

Answer 2

No way should they ever go to a shootout in the playoffs!

I am not crazy about this idea either, but I'd actually prefer it to a shootout: if a playoff game is not decided in two overtimes, call it a tie and give 1/2 win to each team. (If you get two ties in a series, it'll be the same as having each team win once.) Maybe this would actually make teams go for it even more in OT, especially the last 10 minutes of a second OT period. The only exception would be a game seven which cannot end in a tie, that would have to be played to a decision.

And before anybody thinks that the idea of ties in the playoffs is absurd, consider this. In the 1919 Stanley Cup Finals (which was never finished due to a flu outbreak which caused the death of Montreal's Joe Hall), game four between Montreal and Seattle actually DID end in a 0-0 tie after one overtime period! The official record of the five-game series was two wins for each team with one tie.

So there IS historical precedent for a tie in the Stanley Cup Playoffs! However, there is absolutely no historical precedent for a playoff shootout, and the league should not start one.

Answer 3

I'm going to finally relent on this one. There should be a shootout after 50 overtime periods. That is not a misprint 50 ot periods.

However this wouldn't be to decide the game. The winner of the shootout could choose to either keep playing or allow the teams to take a 10 hour break and then continue playing.

This is certainly a reasonable compromise and with the chance of the all important shootout maybe some of those calling for it might get to see what ot playoff hockey is all about. Who knows they might even learn to be real hockey fans and learn to appreciate the odd fight or two.

Answer 4

No. If you settle an end-of-regulation tie by a shootout, you're deciding the game by individual efforts: hot-stick shooters vs. brick-wall goalies. Conversely, settling a tie by sudden-death OT -- repeating as necessary -- until the first goal is scored measures which TEAM is the best.

Don't get me wrong ... I like shootouts in the regular season, but for the playoffs it needs to be sudden-death overtime, period. Winning a game is a team effort, and winning 4 games is how you advance in the playoffs. Therefore, no shootouts in the playoffs - keep it at sudden-death OT.

Answer 5

Absolutely not. Shootouts are only OK for regular season games that don't matter as much, but they should never be used to decide anything important. It is against the nature of hockey to decide outcomes by a shootout. The game of hockey is played with 5 skaters and a goalie on each side; the end result of the game should be decided that way as well. Personally, I love the occasional long game in the playoffs.

Answer 6

Goodness, no--OTs are waaaay too much fun to watch. But that's the problem, isn't it? I love it when a game goes into overtime, especially in the playoffs--But it can't be too fun for the players who are working their tails off until the wee hours of the night. Not that my opinion carries much weight in the NHL, but I think that if a game goes into, say, triple overtime, head coaches should get together and deliberate about the possibility of a shootout instead of working both teams to the point of both physical and mental exhaustion.

Answer 7

Shootouts would pacify the morons who can't appreciate a beautiful sport and a true victor in the most pure of all senses! Hockey is a team sport and to decide a playoff game or series winner based on an individual competition would be plain horrible!

Answer 8

My sympathy to those of you who don't have the brain muscle to comment on this issue without getting into name calling of those who have a different point of view. I'll try to use small words so you can understand what I am posting.

Wdx2bb has a point of view I agree with. Play an overtime period or two, but if you cannot settle it in 80 or 100 minutes, go to shootouts. Fact is, only 2 or 3 games each playoff year go beyond the 2nd OT, so we're not talking about a radical change.

Another possibility is to go to 4 on 4 skaters in overtime (like in the regular season) - maybe right away, maybe in the 2nd OT period.

Finally, an idea I read which is cool is make minor penalties one minute long in playoff overtime. This would make referees less reluctant to call them. More penalties would be called, creating more power plays, and hopefully a faster goal.

Answer 9

Shootouts are great for the regular season, but NO, keep them out of the playoffs. I wouldn't be opposed to full-length 4-on-4 OT periods though.

PS. I was at the 2OT Ranger-Sabre game today. It was definitely nerve-wracking, my throat was hurting from screaming so much, and my head hurt. lol.

I say:
1st OT = 5-on-5
2nd OT and beyond = 4-on-4

Answer 10

umm nooo. Shootouts only test the skill of individual players and it takes a whole team to win a Stanley Cup, not a couple of players.

Answer 11

I think it is exciting when a playoff game goes into overtime. But I think there should be a shootout if no one scores after the second overtime.