Eliminating the shootout in the NHL?

[-kj]

But is a contrived win any more satisfying than a tie?

yes

the end

The end of logic, perhaps.

[GFB]

I'm with admiral again on this one... no ties. The system would be much better if they would go with the "3-2-1" point system because then they could get rid of that ridiculous "Regulation Wins + OT Wins - Shootout Wins = Wins That Count Towards Playoffs" formula they use now. Besides, it's only the regular season... As long as they leave the meaningful games alone, I have no problem with meaningless shootouts.

And for those people using the soccer comparison for ties: remember, soccer games are not 60 minutes, but 90 minutes... and soccer games that require penalty kicks range between 100-120 minutes depending upon the governing body's rules. Apples and oranges.

[IceCap]

Ties simply don't work. For all the talk about hockey being a "business first and foremost" (remember those discussions guys?) people seem blind to the notion that ties are bad for business. The casual fan doesn't walk away from a game that ends in a tie entertained. Ties don't entice people to come back.

Sure, if we're going to talk about the "purity of the game" and all that, ties are fine. That's not how things in the real world work, however. You have to appeal to the casual consumer, you have to get your average sports fan interested in watching your product, or else the league as a whole suffers.

Ties make it harder to do that. The shootout not only eliminates ties but it also creates a spectacle. And spectacles entertain people. This past Saturday I was watching the Leafs/Flyers game and someone was actually hoping that no one scored in the overtime period because it would mean he could see a shootout. The shootout is something that the average fan can get excited for. Does it ruin the purity of the game? Yes. You won't get me any argument from me on that point.

It's just that, in the year 2012, the purity of the game needs to take a backseat to what's good for business.

[maz]

I don't see all the hate for ties. They were around for a long time without even having overtime, and it was okay. Soccer is a business too, and yet it is the most popular sport in the world.

A tie can be just as exciting because you still want to win, and try to win, it's just in the end nobody could outdo the other. In the regular season, with games every few days and different events going on in arenas, sometimes only hours later, it's the most practical outcome without having a shootout.

So how do we keep teams from just playing for the tie?

Award nothing for it. Make it equal to a loss for both teams - 0 points. Nobody wants to play for nothing, and since it counts the same as a loss, there's still the sense of "we need to win this game" that keeps teams going, especially if it's a late-season playoff hunt. And if you're worried about there being too many pointless games, then make the overtime 10 or a full 20 minutes at 4 on 4. Combine less skaters, more time, and the notion of winning being the only satisfying option, someone will score in overtime, and the product will be exciting.

What is more exciting than two teams with nothing to lose?

[BBTV]

I'm not in favor of shootouts, but this one on the last day of the season to decide a playoff spot (and eventually send the Flyers to the SCF) was pretty dramatic. I don't think that your entire season should end on a shootout, but it was certainly one of those "moments".

[FiddySicks]

I'm fine with the shootout for the regular season. It's like suffering through your vegetables at dinner so you can properly enjoy dessert (continuous OT playoff hockey).

Why don't they just do that in the regular season? Would games regularly go THAT long if they did?

Now remember, I'm not really all that up to snuff on this hockey stuff.

[zpqmaowl]

I'm fine with the shootout for the regular season. It's like suffering through your vegetables at dinner so you can properly enjoy dessert (continuous OT playoff hockey).

Why don't they just do that in the regular season? Would games regularly go THAT long if they did?

Now remember, I'm not really all that up to snuff on this hockey stuff.

Because the Panthers wouldn't appreciate a 4OT game in Saint Paul when thy have to fly to Detroit and play the next day.

[FiddySicks]

Well, in that case, they should just have a battle royale at mid ice between the starting 5. Whatever team the last guy standing is on wins. If the only way to avoid ties or shootouts is to regularly beat the s**t out of teams, might as well make it fun for the fans! Fans like fighting, right?

[Saintsfan]

I don't see all the hate for ties. They were around for a long time without even having overtime, and it was okay. Soccer is a business too, and yet it is the most popular sport in the world.

A tie can be just as exciting because you still want to win, and try to win, it's just in the end nobody could outdo the other. In the regular season, with games every few days and different events going on in arenas, sometimes only hours later, it's the most practical outcome without having a shootout.

So how do we keep teams from just playing for the tie?

Award nothing for it. Make it equal to a loss for both teams - 0 points. Nobody wants to play for nothing, and since it counts the same as a loss, there's still the sense of "we need to win this game" that keeps teams going, especially if it's a late-season playoff hunt. And if you're worried about there being too many pointless games, then make the overtime 10 or a full 20 minutes at 4 on 4. Combine less skaters, more time, and the notion of winning being the only satisfying option, someone will score in overtime, and the product will be exciting.

What is more exciting than two teams with nothing to lose?

The only problem with nothing for a tie is that there is little motivation for a team 1 down in the last minute to keep playing. Soccer gets it about right, 3 for a win, 1 for a tie (draw).

Some ties can seem very meaningless, but some of the most dramatic soccer games you see are ties with late goals or strong comebacks, or a resolute defensive performance. I personally think having shoot out regular season wins cheapens real victories. Of all Bettman's follies, to me it's the worst.

[Midway]

The whole soccer connection bugs me. Different sports, different scenarios. Doesn't mean the NHL should follow suit so let's give it a rest shall we?

Let's remember that sports are competitive games in which the cardinal goal is to win the game, not to be equal to your opponent. And that's exactly what the NHL needs to appeal to Joe Shmoe the casual sports fan: winners and losers, instead of compromises. That's practically all I can say so far, as I generally do not like the idea of either ties or the shootout but so far the latter seems to be a necessary evil for the league.

[Norva]

I just have to say, I saw a 0-0 tie in a college hockey game my team was in this last season. It was one of the most intense exciting hockey games I have ever witnessed. It was stellar defense, close calls and an intense atmosphere. Yeah we didn't win, it was a tie, but I still remember after the game vein g more then satisfied watching a damn good game and having a great experience. Ties can be just as exciting as any other type of game, I wasn't in the least upset that there wasn't a winner and a loser. It was a hard fought showdown between two great teams and only fueled the excitement for the rematch at the end of the season.

[Saintsfan]

The whole soccer connection bugs me. Different sports, different scenarios. Doesn't mean the NHL should follow suit so let's give it a rest shall we?

Let's remember that sports are competitive games in which the cardinal goal is to win the game, not to be equal to your opponent. And that's exactly what the NHL needs to appeal to Joe Shmoe the casual sports fan: winners and losers, instead of compromises. That's practically all I can say so far, as I generally do not like the idea of either ties or the shootout but so far the latter seems to be a necessary evil for the league.

The point is scoring in soccer and hockey are relatively similarly easy/hard. I personally think 1 period of sudden death OT for regular season hockey was fine, heck perfect for the NHL. The point of regular season is not the winning and losing of individual games, but form and momentum. Sometimes a comeback tie can give a team momentum, why take that away in the lottery of a shootout?

Honestly I get the wanting to see a result, but actually in regular season play, fans want to see the development of a season, the swings and roundabouts of form and momentum far more than the result of one individual game.

[The_Admiral]

Patently false dilemma: no sport is more about the development of a season than baseball, and it abhors non-outcomes so much that it'll play a game that got suspended or postponed months ago.

[Magnus]

I'm not in favor of shootouts, but the 2010 one on the last day of the season to decide a playoff spot (and eventually send the Flyers to the SCF) was pretty dramatic. I don't think that your entire season should end on a shootout, but it was certainly one of those "moments".

I dunno how I forgot about that one. Yikes.

Lower levels (amateur, beer league, minor) should keep ties if they want/need to, because those players are playing for the love of the game. (As well as ice time issues at arenas.)

But I think I'm with Cap on the "this is a business, keep your fans entertained" bit.

[Saintsfan]

Patently false dilemma: no sport is more about the development of a season than baseball, and it abhors non-outcomes so much that it'll play a game that got suspended or postponed months ago.

Playing postponed games is a different matter, but even in baseball I think limiting extra innings to 3 could be interesting, though I am not saying that should happen. One difference with baseball is that it's impossible for a team playing defense to score, also it's not a time limited game. But most importantly it's a US game, and Americans abhor ties in all things. Hockey has become to American in it's culture, taking it away from it's Canadian roots. Next goal wins is fine, in that context, as it's a bit like playing on the frozen pond, but a shoot out is just too contrived. Sometimes you just have to shake hands and accept a tie in life.

[Magnus]

Americans abhor ties in all things.

Wonder if that's why they claim to have 'won' so many wars that were stalemates. (1812, Vietnam, Terror, etc.)

[The_Admiral]

Um, maybe it's because I didn't go to high school in Texas where the government-approved textbooks are made to say that the earth is 4,000 years old and was created in seven days by the Republican Party, but my peers and I were taught that the War of 1812 was a draw, we withdrew from Vietnam, and the War on Terror wasn't even a war because declaring war against abstract concepts is just bellicose rhetoric and not an actual war.

Anyway, I don't think hockey's adoption of the shootout is making the game "too American," seeing as the shootout is rooted in international play, where it was adapted from soccer, which is as far from Too American as you can get without invoking those weird Central Asian polo games where you have to hurl a severed goat head over a mountain or whatever it is the Afghans do for fun. And even if it were, hockey's roots run plenty deep in the midwestern and northeastern U.S., where there's cultural commonality with Canada in ways that there isn't with other regions of our own country, so it's hardly as if Michigan is a foreign menace.

[The_Admiral]

Buzkashi or Kok-boru or Oglak Tartis or Ulak Tartysh (Persian, Dari: بزکشی bozkæšī; Tajik: бузкашӣ buzkašī, "goat dragging"; Uzbek, Tatar: kökbörü,kök "blue" + börü "wolf"; Kazakh: көкпар; Kyrgyz: улак-тартыш or көкбөрү; Pashto: وزلوبه wuzloba, "goat game"; Turkmen: owlakgapdy; Uyghur: oghlaq tartish; Chinese: 叼羊) is a traditional Central Asian team sport played on horseback in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, northern Pakistan, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China and Kazakhstan.^[1] The steppes' people were skilled riders who could grab a goat or calf from the ground while riding a horse at full gallop. The goal of a player is to grab the carcass of a headless goat or calf and then get it clear of the other players and pitch it across a goal line or into a target circle or vat.

This is how the NHL should break ties. Good thing Marian Hossa won that Stanley Cup, or he might've been out a head!

[Saintsfan]

Anyway, I don't think hockey's adoption of the shootout is making the game "too American," seeing as the shootout is rooted in international play, where it was adapted from soccer, which is as far from Too American as you can get without invoking those weird Central Asian polo games where you have to hurl a severed goat head over a mountain or whatever it is the Afghans do for fun. And even if it were, hockey's roots run plenty deep in the midwestern and northeastern U.S., where there's cultural commonality with Canada in ways that there isn't with other regions of our own country, so it's hardly as if Michigan is a foreign menace.

Well I can't think of too many domestic soccer leagues that use a shoot out.

It's true that some parts of the US are more similar with Canada than I am perhaps crediting, but the issue with the shootout is that it's there to appeal to other parts of the US, to a Texan, or a Floridian feel hockey is more American. I don't think it does much good to appeal to a culture that doesn't 'get' hockey. Anymore than the NFL should start trying to appeal to a non UK European audience.

[OnWis97]

Um, maybe it's because I didn't go to high school in Texas where the government-approved textbooks are made to say that the earth is 4,000 years old and was created in seven days by the Republican Party, but my peers and I were taught that the War of 1812 was a draw, we withdrew from Vietnam, and the War on Terror wasn't even a war because declaring war against abstract concepts is just bellicose rhetoric and not an actual war.

Anyway, I don't think hockey's adoption of the shootout is making the game "too American," seeing as the shootout is rooted in international play, where it was adapted from soccer, which is as far from Too American as you can get without invoking those weird Central Asian polo games where you have to hurl a severed goat head over a mountain or whatever it is the Afghans do for fun. And even if it were, hockey's roots run plenty deep in the midwestern and northeastern U.S., where there's cultural commonality with Canada in ways that there isn't with other regions of our own country, so it's hardly as if Michigan is a foreign menace.

There you go: anyone that wants to rally American fans against shootouts, tell 'em that that's what they do in European soccer. "We don't wanna be like Yur-up."

Americans abhor ties in all things.

Wonder if that's why they claim to have 'won' so many wars that were stalemates. (1812, Vietnam, Terror, etc.)

"We are Ten and one!"

--Bill Murray's Character on Stripes