Eliminating the shootout in the NHL?

[BBTV]

Howabout you either win or you don't. Get rid of points, and just go by wins. If you tie, you don't win. Add a second 5 minute OT or extend to 10 mins if necessary. Teams will have more incentive to win instead of "not lose".

[fouhy12]

Howabout you either win or you don't. Get rid of points, and just go by wins. If you tie, you don't win. Add a second 5 minute OT or extend to 10 mins if necessary. Teams will have more incentive to win instead of "not lose".

Exactly! The OT should be 5 on 5 though.

[RedSox44]

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.)

I would barely call Vietnam a stalemate...

[Don]

I hate the shootout but I think if theyre going to keep it (which they are) they need to up it to 5 skaters. 3 is too much of a toss up IMO.

[The Six]

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.

Well Japanese baseball has ties. It's really because they can't play forever into the night because the trains stop running at midnight, and they're the primary means of transportation.

[maz]

I hate the shootout but I think if theyre going to keep it (which they are) they need to up it to 5 skaters. 3 is too much of a toss up IMO.

Agreed. If you don't want ties, this might be the best way to do it. Maybe if you also up the OT to five skaters.

[The_Admiral]

Best of five would pare down a slight bit of randomness inherent to the format. I'll hand the Kings a hard-earned victory for winning their shootout in the sixth inning on Sunday night. The ones that go score/save/score/save and are over before you know what hit you, I understand why people bristle at those.

[Stampman]

I have no problem with ties.

The loser point came in because after they had the 5 minute OT for a while teams played for the tie, not the win.

So they said--okay, you have the point, now go for the win.

Keep the 5 minute OT but leave it tied if nobody scores.

I don't have a problem with that, or with no OT in regular season.

The shootout is contrived, and a team sport should not be decided by a skills competition.

[The_Admiral]

I don't like the idea of three-point wins. I also dislike the regulation-3 overtime-2 shootout-1 breakdown that's so often proposed. Now, this might be a little messy, but if we have to give partial credit for shootouts, half a point each for a 70-minute tie and the remaining point for the shootout win? That also brings us back to four-column standings, which were a national joke. This was a horrible idea. Forget I said it. that whole thing.

I got bored, so I tried this. 2, 0, 1.5, .5. It conserves the shootout and the two-point game, but half-points may be kind of messy.

1. New York	41-20-3-5	89
2. Pittsburgh	33-23-9-3	81
3. Philadelphia	37-24-3-5	81
4. Boston	33-27-7-2	77.5
5. New Jersey	30-27-10-3	76.5
6. Washington	34-31-2-3	72.5
7. Ottawa	31-31-5-3	71
8. Screw Tallon 29-28-4-8	68
9. Buffalo	26-33-7-4	64.5
10. Tampa Bay	30-34-2-3	64.5
11. Winnipeg	28-33-4-4	64
12. Toronto	27-36-3-4	60.5
13. Montreal	23-35-4-8	56
14. Long Island	23-38-5-4	55.5
15. Carolina	26-38-0-6	55

1. St. Louis	41-19-4-7	91.5
2. Detroit	37-24-7-2	85.5
3. Vancouver	35-20-7-7	84
4. Nashville	37-24-4-4	82
5. Dallas	33-27-6-4	77
6. Chicago	33-29-5-4	75.5
7. Colorado	29-33-8-1	70.5
8. Phoenix	29-28-5-8	69.5
9. Calgary	30-30-3-7	68
10. San Jose	28-30-6-5	67.5
11. Los Angeles	28-30-5-7	67
12. Anaheim	26-35-3-6	59.5
13. Minnesota	22-33-7-8	58.5
14. Edmonton	22-38-4-5	52.5
15. Columbus	19-42-3-5	45

[-kj]

Why is 3-2-1-0 (or, if you prefer, 3-0-2-1) such a bad idea, to the point that fractional points would be better?

(Disclaimer, since it often seems to be necessary: No, I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm interested in a reasoned answer.)

[The_Admiral]

It's not. I was just interested in preserving some semblance of continuity with the two-point win, even though 2005-present point inflation has pretty well screwed that up. Unless we get better about showing winning percentages to kind of smooth things out, it might look weird if we were poring through the record books and were to see, say, the 167-point 2011 Vancouver Canucks. Of course, the 91.5-point St. Louis Blues doesn't look any less jarring. You know what, I think the points system was just kind of a dumb idea from the outset.

[VancouverFan69]

I have no problem with ties.

The loser point came in because after they had the 5 minute OT for a while teams played for the tie, not the win.

So they said--okay, you have the point, now go for the win.

Keep the 5 minute OT but leave it tied if nobody scores.

I don't have a problem with that, or with no OT in regular season.

The shootout is contrived, and a team sport should not be decided by a skills competition.

Totally agree 110%. I remember back in the day when there were exciting 5-5 or even 7-7 ties. Those ties resulted from back-and-forth scoring or a team performing a miraculous comeback. A tie used to feel like a moral victory if your favourite team was average at best and it came against a much superior opponent or it used to feel like a loss if your favourite team were the much better team and it was against a much weaker opponent.

Bottom line is this: the standings are supposed to be the true measuring stick for teams vs other teams. When the shootout was first implemented, there were like 8 teams with losing records - in a 30-team league. That's a joke.

[greyraven8]

Go back to no OT or Shootouts in the regular season. Keep playoffs the way they have always been.

Nothing wrong with a tie. The quality of a game with a tie is usually about the same as the ones with a win. If you are concern with the quality of the games, maybe having a shorter schedule might improve that (someone earlier suggested 76 games - 76 or less sounds better than what they have).

Hockey is a borderline sport in the U.S. I sure whatever networks are covering it would like an approximate idea of how long each game will last. If it went too long I'm sure some networks in the U.S. would cut away from the game to a repeat of Law&Order, the local news, or whatever was scheduled next.

I'm not sure if the shootouts are more popular with Americans than Canadians, is a generational thing, depends on whether you've played the game (or are a casual versus hardcore fan), or some combination of some or all of these things.

Agree with previous posters saying a team sport shouldn't be decided by a skills competition.

[Stampman]

I have no problem with ties.

The loser point came in because after they had the 5 minute OT for a while teams played for the tie, not the win.

So they said--okay, you have the point, now go for the win.

Keep the 5 minute OT but leave it tied if nobody scores.

I don't have a problem with that, or with no OT in regular season.

The shootout is contrived, and a team sport should not be decided by a skills competition.

Totally agree 110%. I remember back in the day when there were exciting 5-5 or even 7-7 ties. Those ties resulted from back-and-forth scoring or a team performing a miraculous comeback. A tie used to feel like a moral victory if your favourite team was average at best and it came against a much superior opponent or it used to feel like a loss if your favourite team were the much better team and it was against a much weaker opponent.

Bottom line is this: the standings are supposed to be the true measuring stick for teams vs other teams. When the shootout was first implemented, there were like 8 teams with losing records - in a 30-team league. That's a joke.

Go back to no OT or Shootouts in the regular season. Keep playoffs the way they have always been.

Nothing wrong with a tie. The quality of a game with a tie is usually about the same as the ones with a win. If you are concern with the quality of the games, maybe having a shorter schedule might improve that (someone earlier suggested 76 games - 76 or less sounds better than what they have).

Hockey is a borderline sport in the U.S. I sure whatever networks are covering it would like an approximate idea of how long each game will last. If it went too long I'm sure some networks in the U.S. would cut away from the game to a repeat of Law&Order, the local news, or whatever was scheduled next.

I'm not sure if the shootouts are more popular with Americans than Canadians, is a generational thing, depends on whether you've played the game (or are a casual versus hardcore fan), or some combination of some or all of these things.

Agree with previous posters saying a team sport shouldn't be decided by a skills competition.

Glad to see others agree.

But I have my doubts this will ever happen...

But we will see.

[DaytonBlue]

I don't think the shootout is going away, but they could change the point system to make going for the win more worthwhile.

Regulation or overtime win=3 points

Shootout win=2 points

Loss=0 points

Make overtime 10 minutes of 4 on 4, and keep the shootout 3 rounds. If it stays 3 rounds, it's more of a crap shoot so that's another incentive to win the game in overtime. With the current system, I would prefer they go to 5 rounds.

[The_Admiral]

But you don't want a crapshoot if you're trying to improve the inherent randomness of the game. That doesn't make any sense at all.

[DaytonBlue]

My rationale was if the teams want to avoid the randomness of the shootout, they would be more aggressive in overtime to try and win the game.

[DaRadniz29]

Haven't got in on this discussion in while. A lot very interesting ideas. I disagree that ties cannot be entertaining or that the casual fan won't enjoy the tie. A San Jose Sharks preseason game I was at a while go saw the Sharks down 3-0 to the Blackhawks, the Sharks came back and tied the game. The game ended in a tie after one 5v5 OT Period (so yes this game was a while ago), but it sounded like a playoff game in the Tank. I was ecstatic about the Sharks comeback, and at that time I was kid, and casual fan. There was no drop in the excitement.

Second, quite a few Association Football/Soccer games I've seen end in ties were very exciting. What kind of bothers me is that MLS doesn't have even one OT Period if the game is tied after the 90minutes + stoppage time. I think they would want to try, but I'm sure there's an explanation.

An option that a few on this thread have mentioned is have the NHL do away with the point system. The argument against that is that the NHL standings would still need to accommodate for the shootout. Well I think the only way a win/loss percentage system would work is if the NHL eliminated shootouts. An option that popped into my head is:

3 20 minute periods. If the game is tied after regulation - 1 10minute (Running clock) 4v4 OT period. First team to score wins.

If the game is still tied at the end of the OT period, the game ends in a tie.

I think the 4v4 for that period of time would make ties less frequent - not as infrequent (is that a would?) as the NFL but less than in the past. Also a ten minute running clock (Only stoppage would be if a team has a timeout still remaining)

Also I don't think the game would go longer than it does now with the OT period and shootout. I would be interesting to implement into preseason games in the near future and see how it transpires.

Thoughts?

[Epiphanic]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Declaring a tie after an OT period is silly. Ties after regulation (a la the MLS) is how you should do it if you're going to have ties. If you're going to play extra after regulation (with overtime period(s) and/or a shootout), play 'til there is a winner. That's the point of overtime, isn't it? To determine a winner?

[NJTank]

That is what is wrong with the MLS too many ties, I dont think there is a problem of extending OT to 10 minutes and than saying the game is a tie.