Ah, the NHL shootout. The league's answers to all of their problems. "Do you see how excited the fans are during a shootout? They're all on their feet."
The NHL believes that every fan loves the shootout based on the tension in the building. To me, they're way off base.
The reason the fans are on their feet is because their team might win or lose based on one shot. It's a little more than luck, but a little less than skill. I'd call it a semi-educated guess.
Ryan O'Reilly and Antti Niemi
That's stressful, not exciting. I don't think I've ever said, "Man, I hope this game goes to a shootout." Of all the die hard hockey fans I've attended games with, I don't think one of them has shown even an ounce of excitement. In fact, it seems every shootout is greeted with groans and rolled eyes.
Hockey should be decided with HOCKEY. The NBA doesn't settle overtime with free throws. The NFL's overtime system, despite it's flaws, still relies on football to decide a winner. It's not a field goal kick off. Baseball plays until the game is decided...even if it takes another day.
The 4 on 4 overtime format the NHL uses is great. It opens up the game, and more chances are created, but they only play for 5 minutes. According to the Hockey News, roughly 40% of overtime games are decided in the 5 minute frame. What doesn't show up in that 40% is the fact that lesser skilled teams often try to hang on and get to the shootout, where they know it's a crap shoot.
Adding 5 more minutes to overtime would alleviate this problem, and seperate the best teams from the lesser teams. With no shootout, teams would be more willing to take chances to get that extra point.
If that doesn't settle it, the game ends in a tie. The tie is not the end of the world like the NHL fears. The league thrived in the "tie era" when the league wasn't so watered down because of too many teams.
Personally, I'd like to see them keep playing until the game is decided, but the problem hockey has is the ice surface. After 20 minutes, the ice is done for. Fans won't be willing to wait through another intermission for a regular season game. I would, but I don't think the "casual fan" will.
4 Comments
iplagitr said:
100% agree on making the OT frame longer - and then leaving it a tie if no one scores. The league will never do it, but I'd love to see the whole game played 4-on-4. It's SO much more open and exciting, and you'd probably have less tied scores at the end. If the league wants to open the game up, provide more offense, and eliminate all the clutch/grab garbage, that's all they have to do. I'm sick of seeing so many of the goals in hockey being long shots from the point through a crowd in front. Let's see goals scored with more skill and less luck-of-the-deflection.
Jay Zawaski said:
@iplagitr: Here's my huge problem with major rule changes, like 60 minutes of 4 on 4 or bigger nets. it divides eras. hockey is one of the few sports where 50 goals has been significant throughout it's history. bigger nets, bigger rinks, and less men on the ice at a time would end that statistical marker. plus...i fear change.
mutley said:
And what if the game still isn't decided after 10 mins of OT?
Jay Zawaski said:
@mutley: I'm glad I saw your comment. The system cut off my conclusion! It's fixed now. Thanks.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: