Powered By
Sponsored By
Apply for Amex

Tuesday, May 22, 2007


I posted this on the other blogs I contribute to I'm trying to get answers from a variety of people so please let me know what you think.
What do all of you think of the overtime format? Do you enjoy games that go into the 4 OT's? What do you think should be done or should be anything be done? I'm just curious what you guys think?


Anonymous said...

I think hockey should stay the same, it shouldnt matter how many overtimes have to take place to determine a winner, its what makes hockey unique.
4 on 4 after 3 periods (in the playoffs) hopefully never, ever happens.
4 on 4 in the regular season is OK though, then the shottout, I like this format.


Sarah said...

Well, I'm on record as believing the shootout in the regular season is worse than Hitler, so I'm not going to advocate for it in the playoffs. And I'm honestly not a fan of 4-on-4 either, for the same basic reason I don't like shootouts -- I see it as a gimmick. If it were up to me, regular season games would have 5 minutes of 5 on 5 OT, no shootout, and no loser point. If it's a tie, it's a tie.

Obviously, though, in the playoffs you can't have ties, so that means OT until someone scores. I essentially don't want to see that changed into something gimmicky, but I can see where people are coming from on this. These are well-conditioned athletes, but playing even a few of these marathon games over the course of the playoffs does wear them down faster. Honestly, although the last couple of seasons have had good finals, for most of the late 90s to early 2000s, the best play in the playoffs was always in the first round, and the quality of play was just awful by the finals. One of the big reasons I starting tuning the playoffs out as they went along. And I do think a lot of that decline in the tempo and quality of play was due to players wearing down.

It does seem like there are more marathon multiple OT games than there used to be. I remember the Isles and Caps playing I believe 4 OTs in 1987, and Boston and Edmonton in the 1990 finals playing a long game where Petr Klima sat on the bench for three periods and then scored the gamewinner. But those games were pretty much oddities. I don't have the stats, but it certainly feels like more games go into multiple OTs now (which no doubt has to do with better goaltending, tighter defensive systems, etc).

So I guess I'll say that I prefer it stays the way it is, but I can see why people are starting to question that. I just wish there were a solution that didn't feel so contrived to me.

Blueshirt80 said...

I personally like the OT playoff format and hope they don't change a thing. There is nothing that compares to playoff OT hockey. The shootout is fun, and I do enjoy it, but it is nothing but a gimmick to get the non-traditional, non-diehard, occasional, fans to watch.

B_Washington said...

I like it just the way it is. no shootouts, no 4 vs 4.

the only way i'd possibly be open to changing it (like they need to consult me anyways) is if it was proven that the long overtimes had very serious health impacts on the players. Then we could open up some negotiations.