Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Would 3-on-3 OT Hockey Be Terrible?

Filed in: NHL Talk, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

Yes.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/10/13 at 03:00 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

Yes it would be terrible, yes it would be better than shootouts.

Just give it up and bring ties back.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 09/10/13 at 03:05 PM ET

perfection's avatar

i think 3-3 double OT would be awesome and a billion times better than shootouts. yeah, it’s hokey, but at least it’s HOCKEY

Posted by perfection from LaLaLand on 09/10/13 at 03:12 PM ET

Avatar

Until regulation wins are worth more than overtime wins, anything that’s not 5 on 5 hockey after 60 minutes is stupid.  That being said, in a world of horrible choices ties are better than 3 on 3 hockey which is better than the shootout.

Posted by Valek from Chicago on 09/10/13 at 03:23 PM ET

Avatar

no one in their right mind wants to go back to 5 on 5 overtime in the regular season

Posted by jkm2011 on 09/10/13 at 03:26 PM ET

harken23's avatar

3 on 3 is a horrible idea. I’d rather have ties or shootouts. Also, get rid of the loser point or go to a 3/2/1 point system.

Posted by harken23 on 09/10/13 at 03:27 PM ET

Kate from Pa.-made in Detroit's avatar

A point a piece after regulation. A tie is a tie. No more OT. Not even 5 minutes of 5 on 5, or, 4 on 4.

OT is for the Playoffs. I hate all the gimmicky changes this game has undergone.

Lets Go Red Wings!!!!!

Posted by Kate from Pa.-made in Detroit on 09/10/13 at 03:33 PM ET

Hank1974's avatar

Ties suck. I hated how teams played for ties if the game was knotted after 2 periods.
Nobody took any chances whatsoever.
I’d much rather go to 3-on-3 then a shootout than go back to ties.

But then again, I hate any sort of sissy points. I’d rather teams played till there was a winner.

But that’ll never happen because the NHL loves to give everyone a medal at the end of the day.
It’s done a terrific job of faking parity through it’s 3-point system, lopsided scheduling (how many times does a good team play a lousy team on the back end of 3 games in 4 nights?) and cap system.

Posted by Hank1974 on 09/10/13 at 03:51 PM ET

Avatar

But then again, I hate any sort of sissy points.

Yet you support deciding a game by not playing hockey.

Posted by Garth on 09/10/13 at 03:56 PM ET

Avatar

I like the idea of playing hockey to determine outcomes but 3 on 3 may result in more injuries. Consider if the game continues for at least two overtimes. That’s a lot of skating even in one OT.

Posted by howeandhowe on 09/10/13 at 04:15 PM ET

Avatar

Putting aside philosophical arguments about ties and whatnot, from a purely practical standpoint, the very rare times I’ve seen 3-on-3 it was just bizarre. 

The players seemed to be at a loss and had no clear idea what to do.  You’d think it would be exciting and wide-open, but they kept instinctively looking for someone to pass to and, of course, finding no one.  Play was quite tentative and not a whole lot happened.  So much empty ice —and not enough happening on it, oddly enough.

Maybe if it happened more, teams would practice for it and be more prepared.  But from what I’ve seen, it’s not something I’d ever hanker to see more of.

Posted by Lex Talionis on 09/10/13 at 04:18 PM ET

Avatar

3 Points for win, 2 points for ot win, 1 point for otl
Or 3 points for win, 1 pt for tie

Not 2 points for win/tie as it will prevent coasting in 3rd period.

Posted by neffernin on 09/10/13 at 04:39 PM ET

Red Winger's avatar

Ties suck. I hated how teams played for ties if the game was knotted after 2 periods.
Nobody took any chances whatsoever.
I’d much rather go to 3-on-3 then a shootout than go back to ties.

Posted by Hank1974 on 09/10/13 at 03:51 PM ET

Same here. 3 on 3 hockey will show skills more than a shootout. Players will showcase their skills at a faster pace and with other players on the ice. As it is now, the shootout lets players showcase specific skills that make the highlight reels, but rarely could be utilized in ‘real world’ game situations.

But then again, I hate any sort of sissy points. I’d rather teams played till there was a winner.

But that’ll never happen because the NHL loves to give everyone a medal at the end of the day.

Posted by Hank1974 on 09/10/13 at 03:51 PM ET

I don’t think it’s because the NHL wants to give everyone a medal, but because the logistics of it all make playing until there is a winner in the regular season impossible.

The season is already condensed, and teams play many nights back-to-back. Playing until there is a winner could mean some games go two or three extra periods. The team playing the next night would be toast. From a fan’s standpoint, it would be difficult for many people to stay at the arena until midnight, if needed, on a weeknight.

Then there is the TV equation, perhaps the biggest factor. The local Fox Sports, etc, would have little problem showing games in their entirety if they, for example, go two or three extra periods on a specific game night.

NBC? No way. You would have games cut-off in the middle of the fourth period, if need be, for NBC to air the program following NHL hockey.

Posted by Red Winger from Sault Ste Marie on 09/10/13 at 05:05 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

But then again, I hate any sort of sissy points. I’d rather teams played till there was a winner.

Which they don’t do now. The teams play until there’s a tie, then use a skills competition that shows little correlation to actual team quality to determine the outcome.

But that’ll never happen because the NHL loves to give everyone a medal at the end of the day.

Not really. Hockey is a hard sport to play—you know this. 60 minutes is difficult enough, then you do it 3 times a week until you’ve played 82 games. Throw in a dozen or so games where you play an additional five minutes and that’s a brutal season. There’s no feasible and even remotely healthy way to play sudden death with no expiration all 82 games.

It’s done a terrific job of faking parity through it’s 3-point system, lopsided scheduling (how many times does a good team play a lousy team on the back end of 3 games in 4 nights?) and cap system.

Posted by Hank1974 on 09/10/13 at 03:51 PM ET

Well I agree with you on the last point.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 09/10/13 at 05:24 PM ET

Evilpens's avatar

BUT 5 guys skating backwards in the Neutral zone is hockey EH ??????

Posted by Evilpens on 09/10/13 at 05:34 PM ET

EDJ's avatar

It’s a poor argument that players seem at a loss when playing 3 on 3. It’s like when NHL players play on international ice and have to get used to the size. It takes getting used to. The GMs at the Traverse City tournament liked it, which means it probably has some promise if even prospects can make it interesting.

Posted by EDJ on 09/10/13 at 05:45 PM ET

bigdee89's avatar

Watching magicians like Datsyuk operate in the shoot out is enough to keep me coming back.

NHL just needs to change their point system

Posted by bigdee89 from The Great White North Eh? on 09/10/13 at 07:42 PM ET

redxblack's avatar

3/3 would be better than a shootout, but would be terrible. 4/4 OT and then a tie. Each game is 2 pts. No points for getting to OT. 1 pt ea for a tie.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 09/10/13 at 10:19 PM ET

Hootinani's avatar

Its a gimmick, just like the shootout.  6 one, half dozen the other.

Posted by Hootinani on 09/11/13 at 09:51 AM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image