sparkychewbarky

According to Ken Campbell (Senior writer for "The Hockey News") there are 5 NHL Expansion bids so far...

Las Vegas, Quebec, Toronto and 2 bids from Seattle.

Graeme Roustan discusses his bid for Tor2.

Interesting listen...

Roustan Interview

Something got messed-up in the translation from Coyotese to English.

Here's how it should have read...

"500 million...Crazy"

...a pretty good read featuring been-there-done-that Peter Pocklington.

---

Coaches are looking to stay employed, too. And there is an expectation by the fans and the GM's/front office for the coaches to come up with a game plan for 3-on-3 play. Coaches don't give a damn about the fans being entertained....see "neutral zone trap" and "1-3-1".

Hell, ask the Kings. Wasn't their shootout record like 3-15? You can bet your ass they'll be coming up with ways to win in 3-on-3 situations, as will the other 29 teams.

I know you're not comparing your beer-league team to NHL play. Hell, I don't even put heavy consideration on the AHL stats because these players/coaches are more concerned about practices between games and the parent club dictating how the farm team plays their games. They aren't scheming 3-on-3 play because that takes practice time away from the fundamentals and drills the parent club wants them to refine and perfect.

I agree with everything you're saying here Hedley...Coaches will do their damnedest to scheme the crap out of this but...this ain't football.

The beauty of the 3on3 is that it's gonna be super-hard to put it into a box.

The 3on3 is more fluid, chaotic and fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants than 5on5 or 4on4.

How would you scheme a 1on1 competition?

The fewer the players, the more it comes down to speed, skill and luck.

This'll have coaches pulling their hair out.

Their "scheme" will last 'til the first mistake and then it'll be good ol' pond hockey 101.

Key numbers: 56 GWG were scored in the 3 minutes of 4 on 4. 45 GWG were scored in the 4 minutes of 3 on 3. So yes, while the number of shootouts did go down, it is telling to me that fewer goals were actually scored during 3 on 3 play, despite there being an extra minute to work with.

Anyone who is pretending straight 3 on 3 will kill the shootout may be under some delusion.

Hang on there one minute, ramalamadingdong...

136 games go into 4on4 overtime and there's 56 "game-winners"....That's a success rate of 41%.

80 games make it into 3on3 OT, where there's 45 "game-winners" ...That's a success rate of 56%.

I'll swing by this neighbourhood around All-Star time next year, and you can attempt to call me "delusional" then.

Don't forget just how conservative coaches and teams get after January 1st. They can accept losing a shootout rather than in OT because of the ROW tiebreaker.

Bingo. If you lose in the shootout, you get a point and the other team gets a win that counts less. Most of all, you can't say you did anything wrong.

You want to kill the shootout, kill the loser point. Keep breaking ties in the win column with ROWs, sure, but stop padding the points and teams will play to win.

Yeah, that would work, but aren't we looking to be entertained?

Several years ago I treated a rep team that I was coaching to a year-end 3on3 tourny.

3on3....change on the fly...no face-offs...clear the zone after a goal....

Even when a penalty was called, the play kept on, and the "offended" team was awarded a penalty shot in a game-end shoot-out.

(So if my team had 2 penalties, the other team had 2 shots)

Anyway, it was fantastic non-stop action...chances galore!

I can remember addressing the parents in the lobby after the game.

These were battle-hardened rep parents that had been-there, done-that.

They couldn't contain their enthusiasm.

We do the 3on3 thing every year now.

I can almost guarantee you admiral, that the 3on3 OT will be the most exciting part of the game.

And if you're worried about coaches ruining this with some sort of "super-system"...well don't.

The fewer players on the ice; the harder it is to implement a "system'.

It'll be chaotic, fast and fun, and I'm convinced that it'll work.

HAVE YOU EVEN PAID ATTENTION TO THE DIRECTION NHL COACHING HAS GONE!?

YES!!

HOO BOY, I'VE GOT GOAL FEVER!

Well then, you won't like the new system.

Rather than having the multi-goal shoot-outs, more games will be decided by one goal.

No way.

3 on 3 means more ice, more chances, more odd-man rushes...mistakes won't be dangerous; they'll be deadly.

On the fly changes better be bang-on.

If the teams go all-out this will be fantastic!

However, you're right, if teams play not-to-lose... it'll suck.

I'd hope that not much more than a third of OT games go into a shoot-out.

The zamboni guys'll be able to go home early.

I'll put the percentage of shoot-outs after overtime at under 40%.

I drink Chivas.

3-on-3 before now produced a lot of goals because it's something coaches rarely-to-never practiced. It's a situation that rarely happened, so what little precious practice time they got wasn't wasted on 3-on-3 situations.

Now, the coaching staff has a reason to practice 3-on-3 situations because an extra point is on the line. They're going to figure out ways to slow down the game and clog up space in 3-on-3 play.

Admiral's absolutely correct. 3-on-3 play is going to get figured out pretty quickly and we'll still see well north of 100 shootouts throughout the season. Maybe not 170, but closer to that number than 85. Don't forget just how conservative coaches and teams get after January 1st. They can accept losing a shootout rather than in OT because of the ROW tiebreaker.

...Didn't happen in the AHL.

Also worth considering: the "extra open ice" in international play actually ends up suppressing offense in a lot of cases. Doesn't it follow that we'll see that here?

Apples and oranges. That extra ice is 42.5' away from the net!

This past season, the AHL used a hybrid system of 3 minutes of 4on4, followed by 4 minutes of 3on3.

75% of games were decided before the shootout...more than double the previous season.

I'll stand by my predictions.

No way.

3 on 3 means more ice, more chances, more odd-man rushes...mistakes won't be dangerous; they'll be deadly.

On the fly changes better be bang-on.

If the teams go all-out this will be fantastic!

However, you're right, if teams play not-to-lose... it'll suck.

I'd hope that not much more than a third of OT games go into a shoot-out.

The zamboni guys'll be able to go home early.

I'll put the percentage of shoot-outs after overtime at under 40%.

I drink Chivas.

Having watched this stupid league shoot itself in the foot for about 16 years, I will tell you how this 3-on-3 thing will go. Through October, a lot of games will be decided before the shootout. Everyone will ooh and ahh over how dynamic this 3-on-3 hockey is. Columnists will even opine that regulation hockey should go to 4-on-4 so there's always more open ice! But by American Thanksgiving, coaches will have adjusted, and 3-on-3 overtime will be even safer than 4-on-4 was (consider that no one ever pleads for more open ice in playoff overtime, which is much more likely to end in five minutes than it is to end in fifty), and overtime will become nothing but twenty-second shifts of harmless dump-and-chase to make sure that everyone is Playing Our Kind Of Mistake-Free Hockey and other such crap, and then the number of shootouts will go way up, and general managers will wring their hands once more about how there must be something done about this damned shootout, even though the shootout is not the problem and never has been the problem because you don't have to do it if you knock it the off with the limp-dick dump-and-chase crap.

INTERPOLATION: I went to a Blackhawks game this year in March. They played the Oilers and won 2-1 in the shootout. The game itself was a total turdburger, which any of you could have intuited from the fact that it was a Blackhawks game in the second half of the regular season and the Oilers were involved. Derek Roy scored early off a deflection from Yakupov, Ben Scrivens stopped a bunch of shots, most of which were the usual blue-line bloops the Hawks fling when they don't want to challenge a goalie too much, but then one from Seabrook finally went in late. Nothing happened in overtime because nothing ever does, then the newly acquired Antoine Vermette won it in the shootout. Finally, something that night was really exciting! Purists, schmurists, let's see you sit through a live hockey game, allegedly the most exciting live sport, where very little of consequence happens and be totally fine with going home with a tie. That shootout was a godsend in terms of excitement. Even if the Hawks had lost, it would have been preferable to ending that game by saying nobody won and nobody lost. That's not even true, because 21,000+ of us would have lost for having sat through that sucky game with no true outcome. I wouldn't want every game to end this way, but Crawford and Scrivens were having objectively great nights and something had to give. I don't think that's the case every night; it certainly couldn't have been the case for those Panthers/Coyotes teams that would go to between 18 and 20 a year. Shootouts should be legal and rare. Just like abortions!

Anyway, there were 170 shootouts last year. I'll take the over.

I'll cut that number in half and take the under.

You're right that coaches will try a safe way to play this, but that's gonna be tough, especially at home.

Thanks for all the props on my BYU logo guys, appreciate it! Though it would've been cool if they used my version, I totally understand why they would go with a design firm to do their logo restoration and if they did use my version for inspiration I'm not bothered by it at all...I'm actually flattered it looks a lot like mine, lol. If people outside these boards start to compare and question the two, they would be the one's who have to explain the similarities even though they both come from the same vintage logo. In the sports logos forum under hettinger's vintage college mascot logos thread someone posted the NEW logo with my version alongside it as the OLD original logo. So at the end of the day...it's all good to me!

EDIT: Just saw this SB NATION article on the BYU logo also using my version as the OLD & original for comparison with the NEW.

http://www.vanquishthefoe.com/byu-cougars-basketball/2014/11/13/7214877/updated-sailor-coug-byu-secondary-logo-all-sports

Kudos to you ren, for taking the high road on this...but I'm calling B.S. on the folks at BYU and Torch Creative.

One of two things happened...

1- Nobody was aware of, or saw your rendering...OR

2-They saw it, liked it, and pretty much just tweaked your work.

The works are too similar for me to believe the first option, so I'm saying that the latter was probably the case.

As Delayed Penalty observed...both works are "tracings" of an existing logo, so they will be similar.

However, even in tracings, there's a hundred different ways to render it.

I find that the weight and style of the lines, and the treatments of certain areas are just too similar to be coincidental.

So, what would be the big deal for them to man-up, and admit that they were influenced by your excellent work, and give you some credit for this new product.

That would be the right thing to do.

ren would have done a better job of recreating that logo, imo.

I just checked Doyle524's index, and it looks as though ren already did:

Compare with:

Whoa...That's close...

If the new BYU logo isn't your work ren, I would say that it was definitely "inspired" by your work.

The line "weights" are almost identical.

... with so many concepts coming out you almost have to crank out a design on a daily basis to stay on the first page.

Yeah, the stuff flies through here doesn't it? If you miss a few days, you could miss an entire series.

Would love to see a "condensed" version of this entire thread!

So good!

Nicely done mods.

I really think that a venture such as this will emphasize the "quality over quantity" factor.

Some good ol' competition elevates performance.

This will be good for the Concepts forums.

Congrats to the mods and to the ones who put this all together.

Thanks.

If a mod could pin this, that'd be awesome

Seconded.

The fact that a thread hasn't been pinned since 2010 is a bit concerning... I've reached out to several mods and haven't heard back. It'd be nice if we had a mod for (or at least a current mod that watched) the concepts section...

Whether the mods agree or disagree with this effort... this effort should at least be acknowledged.

I think we all agree that the concepts forum needs some changes.

The multitude of templates available, have made the forum better, but unfortunately worse at the same time.

It's much too easy to just re-colour a uniform or logo and throw it up...

And all new topics should have at least one piece of artwork completed before being allowed to start.

Good work flies off the first page much too quickly these days.

I hear some concerns from the old guard that there are no inaugural inductee threads before '07.

There, of course, should be.

However this situation is quite understandable, when you realize that the members putting the effort into this topic have only been around since '08 at the earliest.

Perhaps if the old guard wants some old guard content, they should get involved and offer up some suggestions.

I also second GotPixels' suggestion that the concepts section needs some sub-sections.

The mods need to pin this thread, or acknowledge it, or send down a bolt of lightning or something, to let us know that suggestions and efforts to improve the Concepts Forum are, at least being heard.

Holy Doodle...

I'm away on holidays, so I've been off the grid for a few days.

I found some wi-fi this morning, logged in and WHAM...

I'm very honoured and very grateful.

This is an ambitious, well thought-out, and so far very well crafted concept.

I'm gonna put the avatar in place when I get home and will be wearing it proudly.

Thanks again guys.

Hey ren...I always check out this series...some fantastic work here.

I'm curious...have you had any feedback at all from any of the institutions that own these logos?

Great work!

Great series ren!

Nice clean work.

Keep it going please.