This Year Around The League

Via ECAC the loss of Yale's 2 coaches.

SB Nation preseason All-ECAC Hockey First Team. No surprise, no CU.

Jim Hyla
SB Nation preseason All-ECAC Hockey First Team. No surprise, no CU.

Every one of those guys except Sweetman is arguably a pre-season Hobey contender. No shame in missing out this time, it's an exceptionally strong group. Also, this is not the official team, it's just some guy's opinion.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
SB Nation preseason All-ECAC Hockey First Team. No surprise, no CU.

Every one of those guys except Sweetman is arguably a pre-season Hobey contender. No shame in missing out this time, it's an exceptionally strong group. Also, this is not the official team, it's just some guy's opinion.

Yes, there is shame. We're not getting those guys.

Another set of 3 preseason All-ECAC teams with no CU players.

When are we going to start reaping the recruiting rewards of Yale and Union winning in back-to-back years?

Coaches' preseason All-League Team. No CU.

Coaches Poll.

1. Harvard (9)     119
2. St. Lawrence (1)102
3. Yale (1)        99
4. Quinnipiac      93
5. Colgate (1)     90
6. Union           65
7. Cornell         55
8. Clarkson        47
9. Dartmouth       41
10. Rensselaer     36
11. Brown          34
12. Princeton      11

Media preseason.

1. Yale (10)         325
2. Quinnipiac (10)   322
3. Harvard (9)       306
4. St. Lawrence (1)  268
5. Colgate           257
6. Union             177
7. Dartmouth         149
8. Clarkson          143
9. Cornell           139
10. Rensselaer       124
11. Brown            97
12. Princeton        34

Nothing good here.

Jim Hyla
Coaches' preseason All-League Team. No CU.

Coaches Poll.

1. Harvard (9)     119
2. St. Lawrence (1)102
3. Yale (1)        99
4. Quinnipiac      93
5. Colgate (1)     90
6. Union           65
7. Cornell         55
8. Clarkson        47
9. Dartmouth       41
10. Rensselaer     36
11. Brown          34
12. Princeton      11

Media preseason.

1. Yale (10)         325
2. Quinnipiac (10)   322
3. Harvard (9)       306
4. St. Lawrence (1)  268
5. Colgate           257
6. Union             177
7. Dartmouth         149
8. Clarkson          143
9. Cornell           139
10. Rensselaer       124
11. Brown            97
12. Princeton        34

Nothing good here.

So, safe to say we can expect the hockey season's success to mimic football, basketball and lacrosse??

Jim Hyla
Nothing good here.

Sure there is - no pressure to live up to expectations. Confound them instead.

Beeeej

Jim Hyla
Nothing good here.

Sure there is - no pressure to live up to expectations. Confound them instead.

I tend to be way too optimistic. But I've always thought that an underachieving team + losing a lot of key players = chance for unexpected success.

Dafatone

Beeeej

Jim Hyla
Nothing good here.

Sure there is - no pressure to live up to expectations. Confound them instead.

I tend to be way too optimistic. But I've always thought that an underachieving team + losing a lot of key players = chance for unexpected success.

My equation would read: underachieving team + loss of key players + system buy-in = near-certain unexpected success.

(I.e., what happened in '97, without the prior underachievement but with enormous graduation losses.)

If the team buys in, we'll be in Placid; if not, at least feeble Princeton (all eleven coaches and a great majority of the media voters placed them last) nearly assures that we won't finish in the cellar.

We've just got to play them one game at a time. And the Good Lord willing, things will work out.

In the words of the chief "SCORE MORE GOALS! "

RPI freshman Brady Wiffen will sit out entire season after being ruled a partial qualifier by the NCAA. Tough blow for Engineers' offense.

— Jeff Cox (@JeffCoxSports) September 30, 2015

What does a "partial qualifier" mean?

Trotsky
What does a "partial qualifier" mean?

Apparently either his grades or his SAT/ACT score wasn't good enough. I find it hard to believe that we didn't know this and that he still was admitted to RPI.

ursusminor

Trotsky
What does a "partial qualifier" mean?

Apparently either his grades or his SAT/ACT score wasn't good enough. I find it hard to believe that we didn't know this and that he still was admitted to RPI.

Yeah, I can't say I thought I'd ever hear of a partial qualifier at a school like RPI (although it's no Cornell )

scoop85

ursusminor

Trotsky
What does a "partial qualifier" mean?

Apparently either his grades or his SAT/ACT score wasn't good enough. I find it hard to believe that we didn't know this and that he still was admitted to RPI.

Yeah, I can't say I thought I'd ever hear of a partial qualifier at a school like RPI (although it's no Cornell )

It doesn't require high academic performance. [grfx.cstv.com] Then again I wondered how some of the hockey players were admitted about 50 years ago. Then they quickly flunked out, Now that doesn't happen.

It begins.

ECAC teams in action tonight (exhibitions):

Colgate @ Mercyhurst
Carleton (ON) @ St. Lawrence
McGill (PQ) @ Clarkson
St. Thomas (NB) @ RPI

My favorite non-ECAC game:

Arizona @ Arizona State

Trotsky
It begins.

ECAC teams in action tonight (exhibitions):

Colgate @ Mercyhurst
Carleton (ON, I think, though could be MN) @ St. Lawrence
McGill (PQ) @ Clarkson
St. Thomas (MN) @ RPI

My favorite non-ECAC game:

Arizona @ Arizona State

St. Lawrence is playing Carleton University, Ottawa
Carleton College does not have a hockey team.

Trotsky
It begins.

ECAC teams in action tonight (exhibitions):

Colgate @ Mercyhurst
Carleton (ON, I think, though could be MN) @ St. Lawrence
McGill (PQ) @ Clarkson
St. Thomas (MN) @ RPI

My favorite non-ECAC game:

Arizona @ Arizona State

PuckMan and I will be in the building.

How the hell did RPI land a div III US team for their exhibition? This is the first US exhibition in recent RPI history. I hope it's a decent game.

marty

Trotsky
It begins.

ECAC teams in action tonight (exhibitions):

Colgate @ Mercyhurst
Carleton (ON, I think, though could be MN) @ St. Lawrence
McGill (PQ) @ Clarkson
St. Thomas (NB) @ RPI

My favorite non-ECAC game:

Arizona @ Arizona State

PuckMan and I will be in the building.

How the hell did RPI land a div III US team for their exhibition? This is the first US exhibition in recent RPI history. I hope it's a decent game.

I was wrong. It's St. Thomas University of Fredericton, NB. They are also playing Q Saturday.

marty

Trotsky
It begins.

ECAC teams in action tonight (exhibitions):

Colgate @ Mercyhurst
Carleton (ON, I think, though could be MN) @ St. Lawrence
McGill (PQ) @ Clarkson
St. Thomas (MN) @ RPI

My favorite non-ECAC game:

Arizona @ Arizona State

PuckMan and I will be in the building.

How the hell did RPI land a div III US team for their exhibition? This is the first US exhibition in recent RPI history. I hope it's a decent game.

Looks like RPI dominated until the OT. Was RPI's second goalie bad? 3 goals on 14 shots.

Jim Hyla

marty

Trotsky
It begins.

ECAC teams in action tonight (exhibitions):

Colgate @ Mercyhurst
Carleton (ON, I think, though could be MN) @ St. Lawrence
McGill (PQ) @ Clarkson
St. Thomas (MN) @ RPI

My favorite non-ECAC game:

Arizona @ Arizona State

PuckMan and I will be in the building.

How the hell did RPI land a div III US team for their exhibition? This is the first US exhibition in recent RPI history. I hope it's a decent game.

Looks like RPI dominated until the OT. Was RPI's second goalie bad? 3 goals on 14 shots.

The St. Thomas goalie was great. RPI’s first goal was on a breakaway and was his only mistake. The second was a pretty power play shot. If I were to place blame it would be on the RPI defense in that final flurry. The third period and OT were fun to watch.

It's already online at RPItv.org .

Too bad there's no BC TV org posting replays.

Ken Schott picks us 9th (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2015/oct/02/ecac-hockey-2015-16-team-previews-cornell/). Little bit of zen/nothingness from Schafer in the article:

Schafer says: “Our outlook is unknown. When you look at what we have returning and what we have coming in, I think there’s a lot of unprovens in a lot of areas. We’re just as excited as everyone else to see what we have within our team.”

"...As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know."

pfibiger
Ken Schott picks us 9th (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2015/oct/02/ecac-hockey-2015-16-team-previews-cornell/).

Boston Globe predicts: Harvard, Yale, Q, SLU, Colgate, U, Cornell, and the rest I didn't bother to remember.

Al DeFlorio

pfibiger
Ken Schott picks us 9th (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2015/oct/02/ecac-hockey-2015-16-team-previews-cornell/).

Boston Globe predicts: Harvard, Yale, Q, SLU, Colgate, U, Cornell, and the rest I didn't bother to remember.

Here.

If anybody knows of any other media predictions, please place them in this thread.

We saw SB Nation's preseason All-League team, but they've also posted their preseason predictions. We're 9th:

[www.sbncollegehockey.com]

Joshua Seguin of College Hockey News picks us to finish 11th. At least we'll always have Princeton.

dbilmes
Joshua Seguin of College Hockey News picks us to finish 11th. At least we'll always have Princeton.

Are we 11th or is Dartmouth?

pfibiger

dbilmes
Joshua Seguin of College Hockey News picks us to finish 11th. At least we'll always have Princeton.

Are we 11th or is Dartmouth?

It looks like we're going to tie Dartmouth for 11th. Although he picks Princeton for 12th. He probably meant to put one of us in 10th place.

Jim Hyla
Nothing good here.

Voters believe Cornell has home ice locked up for the 5-12 round of the ECACs.

Tied at 0 after one. (B)Eagles and RIP each have 13 shots on goal.

[www.rpitv.org]

For the live video.

1-0 RIP after 2.

Final 2-1 (B)Eagles fall to the Engineers. RPI's Kasdorf came up big and they also had some nice bounces and one very solid post.

So the Capital District upsets BU and BC on consecutive days.

With #RPIHockey upset of #BCHockey, #ECACHockey leads #NCAAHockey in interconf. play: #NCHC #HockeyEast #WCHA pic.twitter.com/Qejb2A5ZUK

— Bruce Carlisle (@rbcarlisle) October 11, 2015

ursusminor

RPI freshman Brady Wiffen will sit out entire season after being ruled a partial qualifier by the NCAA. Tough blow for Engineers' offense.

— Jeff Cox (@JeffCoxSports) September 30, 2015

I don't know the logic behind this considering that he didn't play all year. Perhaps he was the most improved academically.

Our Co-Most Improved Players, Parker Reno and Brady Wiffen! pic.twitter.com/HhbIAzuWwM

— RPI Men's Hockey (@RPI_Hockey) May 7, 2016

"Brady Wiffen" should thank his parents for steering him to hockey. Imagine being a designated hitter.

ursusminor
I don't know the logic behind this considering that he didn't play all year. Perhaps he was the most improved academically.

Everyone else regressed?

billhoward
"Brady Wiffen" should thank his parents for steering him to hockey. Imagine being a designated hitter.

OTOH he might have sung acapella at Yale.

marty

billhoward
"Brady Wiffen" should thank his parents for steering him to hockey. Imagine being a designated hitter.

OTOH he might have sung acapella at Yale.

Thank you. That one was hard to miss.

billhoward

marty

billhoward
"Brady Wiffen" should thank his parents for steering him to hockey. Imagine being a designated hitter.

OTOH he might have sung acapella at Yale.

Thank you. That one was hard to miss.

I was stuck on trying to make a Patriots/missing passes due to under-inflation joke.

Beeeej

billhoward

marty

billhoward
"Brady Wiffen" should thank his parents for steering him to hockey. Imagine being a designated hitter.

OTOH he might have sung acapella at Yale.

Thank you. That one was hard to miss.

I was stuck on trying to make a Patriots/missing passes due to under-inflation joke.

If this site wasn't declared a politics-free zone, one could work in a Trump-Brady-Kraft reference. Meanwhile, it is worth watching again Bartolo Colon's home run. That stat sheets says 5-11 and 265 pounds; the height may be correct. I thought Terrance "Pot Roast" Knighton had switched over from football. [espn.go.com]

Via ECAC, NCPR on an SLU stats prof who is working on hockey.

One study really got a lot of play. It found that shoot-outs – the one-on-ones with the goalie to break a tie game - are basically a crapshoot. Schuckers’ analysis found no player is a better shoot-out scorer than anyone else.

Thank god, a reason to not decide games that way.

Al DeFlorio

ursusminor
I don't know the logic behind this considering that he didn't play all year. Perhaps he was the most improved academically.

Everyone else regressed?

I don't think that is the case. If it was, Reno should have gotten the award alone. IMHO, there are others who improved a lot, e.g. Riley Bourbonnais.

Jim Hyla
Via ECAC, NCPR on an SLU stats prof who is working on hockey.

One study really got a lot of play. It found that shoot-outs – the one-on-ones with the goalie to break a tie game - are basically a crapshoot. Schuckers’ analysis found no player is a better shoot-out scorer than anyone else.

Thank god, a reason to not decide games that way.

There's got to be some selection bias baked into those results. Saying that there aren't players in the NHL who are better than others doesn't seem to pass the sniff test. A stay-at-home defense type or a goon seem like they'd have to be worse than top scorers. But then those guys aren't getting the nod for the shoot-out pretty much ever. I can believe that the variance in this skill among quality offensive players is pretty small though, enough to make the results of a shoot-out essentially random.

I fully agree with using this study to justify ditching the damn things though.

I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

No. No, no, no, no, no. No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

Trotsky

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

No. No, no, no, no, no. No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I would like them to cut down on the number of ties... Maybe go to a longer OT. 5 minutes often settles nothing. Why bother??

No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

Trotsky

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

No. No, no, no, no, no. No. The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

Be grateful the next ECAC commissioner doesn't come from NASCAR ranks.

2015	DRIVER	        POINTS	MONEY	        WINS	POLES	TOP 5	TOP 10
1	Kyle Busch	5043	$4,887,217	5	1	12	16
2	Kevin Harvick	5042	$9,018,421	3	3	23	28
3	Jeff Gordon	5038	$6,026,506	1	2	5	21
4	Martin Truex	5032	$5,391,296	1	0	8	22
5	Carl Edwards	2368	$4,590,413	2	2	7	15
6	Joey Logano	2360	$8,405,613	6	1	22	28
7	Brad Keselowski	2347	$6,497,671	1	1	9	25
8	Kurt Busch	2333	$4,675,011	2	1	10	21
9	Denny Hamlin	2327	$6,537,373	2	3	14	20
10	Jimmie Johnson	2315	$7,238,747	5	1	14	22

LGR14
No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

I could go for this... Just do something to cut down on the number of ties... 4 on 4 should add some excitement to the OT's.

Trotsky

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

No. No, no, no, no, no. No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I agree with Greg, and the biggest thing that has bugged me about the NHL system is that each game should have the same total point value. Is winning one game in overtime and losing another in overtime really 50% better than a 3 period win and a 3 period loss? Now that the NHL has gone to the exciting but gimmicky 3 on 3 overtime, at least I'd like to see a 3-2-1-0 point value for NHL games, with the 2-1 covering both overtimes and shootouts. In effect then, an o't or shootout win would only be worth 1.33x what it was worth in the old system where teams divided 2 points.

jkahn

Trotsky

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

No. No, no, no, no, no. No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I agree with Greg, and the biggest thing that has bugged me about the NHL system is that each game should have the same total point value. Is winning one game in overtime and losing another in overtime really 50% better than a 3 period win and a 3 period loss? Now that the NHL has gone to the exciting but gimmicky 3 on 3 overtime, at least I'd like to see a 3-2-1-0 point value for NHL games, with the 2-1 covering both overtimes and shootouts. In effect then, an o't or shootout win would only be worth 1.33x what it was worth in the old system where teams divided 2 points.

The non-constant point value is a horrible feature of the OT rules and has been since the beginning. Neil and/or Jeff's suggestions would at least eliminate this quirk. But getting rid of the OT gimmicks is really the answer.

I've also never liked the idea of playing with a different rule set in OT than used in the rest of the game. Adding gimmicky rules in special situations to add "excitement" just diminishes the game. If OT with fewer than five skaters per side is a good idea then why not use it in the playoffs too?

KeithK

jkahn

Trotsky

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

No. No, no, no, no, no. No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I agree with Greg, and the biggest thing that has bugged me about the NHL system is that each game should have the same total point value. Is winning one game in overtime and losing another in overtime really 50% better than a 3 period win and a 3 period loss? Now that the NHL has gone to the exciting but gimmicky 3 on 3 overtime, at least I'd like to see a 3-2-1-0 point value for NHL games, with the 2-1 covering both overtimes and shootouts. In effect then, an o't or shootout win would only be worth 1.33x what it was worth in the old system where teams divided 2 points.

The non-constant point value is a horrible feature of the OT rules and has been since the beginning. Neil and/or Jeff's suggestions would at least eliminate this quirk. But getting rid of the OT gimmicks is really the answer.

I've also never liked the idea of playing with a different rule set in OT than used in the rest of the game. Adding gimmicky rules in special situations to add "excitement" just diminishes the game. If OT with fewer than five skaters per side is a good idea then why not use it in the playoffs too?

For the same reason that we don't use 20 minute overtimes in the regular season: it's just different.

In addition, teams have a reason to try to play for a tie in the regular season. Having 10 skaters on the ice allows a team playing for the tie to completely clamp down and clog everything. This is bad from an entertainment perspective and from a perspective that argues we want teams to play for the win.

Contrastingly, neither team plays for a tie in the postseason (obviously), and thus 5-on-5 isn't a hinderance.

Turn on Caps-Penguins for OT right now: both teams are going to be flying up and down. That will not happen in the ECAC (unless you get a situation like Harvard-Cornell a couple years ago where both teams really want the win and have nothing to lose)

redice

Trotsky

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

No. No, no, no, no, no. No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I would like them to cut down on the number of ties... Maybe go to a longer OT. 5 minutes often settles nothing. Why bother??

We used to have 10-minute ot. IINM the coaches hated it because the players were tired and at greater risk of injury.

I don't know what percentage of games that go to OT end in ties (my completely off the cuff guess is about 60%), but it's > 0 anyway. I think 5 is the compromise between driving down ties and player safety that makes sense to the coaches.

I've gotten used to 5 and like it better than 10, but I also don't have an aversion to ties.

As for 4x4, if it's a better product then just drop a player and skate 4x4 the whole game. I'm not for it, but if people like skills competitions so much just change the game.

Trotsky
We used to have 10-minute ot. IINM the coaches hated it because the players were tired and at greater risk of injury.

I don't know what percentage of games that go to OT end in ties (my completely off the cuff guess is about 60%), but it's > 0 anyway. I think 5 is the compromise between driving down ties and player safety that makes sense to the coaches.

I've gotten used to 5 and like it better than 10, but I also don't have an aversion to ties.

As for 4x4, if it's a better product then just drop a player and skate 4x4 the whole game. I'm not for it, but if people like skills competitions so much just change the game.

Agree completely. Bastardizing the game in OT is as stupid as the old "two-games-total-goals" series the NCAA used for awhile.

Al DeFlorio

Trotsky
As for 4x4, if it's a better product then just drop a player and skate 4x4 the whole game. I'm not for it, but if people like skills competitions so much just change the game.

Agree completely. Bastardizing the game in OT is as stupid as the old "two-games-total-goals" series the NCAA used for awhile.

Also, also agreed. Who ever said hockey is a skills competition? People who like shootouts and dislike hard-nosed defense, whatever the game, don't understand the notion of team sport.

Ties, moreover, ought to be preserved as one of the last vestiges of gentlemanly conduct.

Scersk '97

Al DeFlorio

Trotsky
As for 4x4, if it's a better product then just drop a player and skate 4x4 the whole game. I'm not for it, but if people like skills competitions so much just change the game.

Agree completely. Bastardizing the game in OT is as stupid as the old "two-games-total-goals" series the NCAA used for awhile.

Also, also agreed. Who ever said hockey is a skills competition? People who like shootouts and dislike hard-nosed defense, whatever the game, don't understand the notion of team sport.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you think a shootout should decide a hockey game after a brief overtime, you should be fine with a home-run derby deciding a baseball game after the tenth inning.

Count me in the "There's nothing wrong with ties" crowd.

I'm actually the only person on earth who doesn't mind the NHL extra point for OT. I wouldn't mind if they did away with the shootout, but I don't think an extra point popping up is as inherently wrong as most people do.

It "feels" wrong, but I don't think it's unfair or unbalances things. The standings generally shake out to be more or less what they'd be otherwise. I'm more concerned with the current playoff format that forces a really tough division to eat itself up before facing the weaker (on paper) opposing division.

Dafatone
I'm actually the only person on earth who doesn't mind the NHL extra point for OT. I wouldn't mind if they did away with the shootout, but I don't think an extra point popping up is as inherently wrong as most people do.

It "feels" wrong, but I don't think it's unfair or unbalances things. The standings generally shake out to be more or less what they'd be otherwise. I'm more concerned with the current playoff format that forces a really tough division to eat itself up before facing the weaker (on paper) opposing division.

I don't know anybody who thinks it's unfair (although it does benefit teams that play lower scoring games). It's just frickin' inelegant.

Beeeej
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you think a shootout should decide a hockey game after a brief overtime, you should be fine with a home-run derby deciding a baseball game after the tenth inning.

Home run derby? David Ortiz' value just went up a couple million.

LGR14
No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3 But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

css228

LGR14
No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3 But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

KeithK

css228

LGR14
No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3 But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

If 20 minute periods are so great, why don't we have 20 minute overtimes? Why do we alternate sides every period? Why can the puck be iced during a penalty kill? Why is a hand pass ok in some zones but not others?

There are a million ways the game is modified in certain situations. No one is advocating for 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 for an entire game: just a five minute sliver when the game happens to go to overtime.

LGR14

KeithK

css228

LGR14
No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3 But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

If 20 minute periods are so great, why don't we have 20 minute overtimes? Why do we alternate sides every period? Why can the puck be iced during a penalty kill? Why is a hand pass ok in some zones but not others?

There are a million ways the game is modified in certain situations. No one is advocating for 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 for an entire game: just a five minute sliver when the game happens to go to overtime.

Yes, there are situations where the rules are modified for special cases. In general these changes are undesirable but sometimes necessary to avoid problems with competitive balance. The overtime change isn't that - it's just using different rules at a critical point in the game for the hell of it. I find this very aesthetically displeasing and wish they didn't do it. Life will go on, but I will continue to maintain that it's a bad idea and hope that college hockey doesn't go that route.

LGR14

KeithK

css228

LGR14
No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3 But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

Not necessarily. Keep the roster size the same and change more frequently. Cut shifts from 40 to 30 seconds.

Trotsky

LGR14

KeithK

css228

LGR14
No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3 But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

Not necessarily. Keep the roster size the same and change more frequently. Cut shifts from 40 to 30 seconds.

Obviously hypothetical: but I'm not sure 30 second shifts would even be possible. We've already seen the NHL adjust to 3-on-3. Teams will hold the puck and do everything they can to keep possession. Guys get stuck out there for too long way too often, which would lead to injuries if they tried to do it over a 60 minute game.

3-on-3 has been super exciting, and I'm in favor of it for NHL OT primarily because it's the lesser of two evils when compared to the shootout.

LGR14

Trotsky

LGR14

KeithK

css228

LGR14
No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3 But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

Not necessarily. Keep the roster size the same and change more frequently. Cut shifts from 40 to 30 seconds.

Obviously hypothetical: but I'm not sure 30 second shifts would even be possible. We've already seen the NHL adjust to 3-on-3. Teams will hold the puck and do everything they can to keep possession. Guys get stuck out there for too long way too often, which would lead to injuries if they tried to do it over a 60 minute game.

3-on-3 has been super exciting, and I'm in favor of it for NHL OT primarily because it's the lesser of two evils when compared to the shootout.

3v3 is just exciting hockey. 3v3 gives great players a chance to shine while keeping useless ones like Tanner Glass or Tom Wilson on the bench. I'm pretty sure we'd all rather watch games where the Subbans, Girouxs, Kanes, Seguins, Kopitars, Karlsson's etc. of the world are on the ice all the time. It's personally a real bummer for me every time I hear the name Andrew MacDonald one my tv. But I will admit there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, which playing 3v3 or 4v4 beyond OT would be. To be totally honest my ideal scenario was to do what the AHL did when testing it, which was play 5 minutes of 4v4 and if it still wasn't decided 5 minutes of 3v3. They all but eliminated the shootout.

Also 3v3 is amazing because my team is so bad at shootouts that we're 31st all time on NHL's list of shootout records. (They count Atlanta and Winnipeg separately). So from my perspective anything that leads to fewer glorified skills competitions is great.

About the shifting, NHL and AHL teams really only do shifts when they have strong control of the puck in 3v3, and the extra space allows guys to really take control and take possession for a while. So you could do 30-40 second shifts on offense, but on D it usually is impossible because you're generally pinned until someone takes a shot.