Wednesday, July 15th, 2020
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Bedpan
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

Rules Changes?

Posted by Jim Hyla 
Rules Changes?
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.239.191.68.cl.cstel.com)
Date: June 10, 2019 07:39AM

NCAA rules committee proposes clarification to video review, changes to in-season tournaments’ overtime

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: June 08, 2020 07:37AM

And this year we may see further OT changes.

CHN: Rules Committee Proposes Universal 3-on-3 OT

USCHO: NCAA ice hockey rules committee proposes 3-on-3 overtime, shootout for conference games, in-season tournaments

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 09:01AM

Jesus fuck. Just have a wet t-shirt contest. My money's on Mike.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 09:17AM

Trotsky
Jesus fuck. Just have a wet t-shirt contest. My money's on Mike.

3 on 3 is entertaining. Like, I'd watch some sort of 3 on 3 hockey league.

As an OT tiebreaker, you might as well flip a coin. At the very least, they better implement some sort of point situation where an OT loser gets a point, because it's a shame to lose in OT on something as random as 3 on 3.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 09:39AM

Damn kids with your flagpole sitting and jazz.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: June 08, 2020 10:50AM

Dafatone
Trotsky
Jesus fuck. Just have a wet t-shirt contest. My money's on Mike.

3 on 3 is entertaining. Like, I'd watch some sort of 3 on 3 hockey league.

As an OT tiebreaker, you might as well flip a coin. At the very least, they better implement some sort of point situation where an OT loser gets a point, because it's a shame to lose in OT on something as random as 3 on 3.

In Europe (and internationally) they have a zero-sum point system where a regulation winner gets 3 points (and the loser 0), while a winner in OT or a shootout gets 2 points (and the loser gets 1). The OT is 3-on-3; I went to one game which went to OT, and it was entertaining/exciting, but I still really don't see the point, although I guess I'd rather have it decided in an OT with weird rules than a shootout. But the current (soon to be former) college system still seems best: full marks for winning under the standard rules in OT, and a tie if no one pulls it off.

I would also be more comfortable with giving a point for losing in OT if it didn't count the same as losing a shootout. Like make the points 5-0 for regulation, 4-1 for OT, and 3-2 for a shootout.

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 11:01AM

jtwcornell91
Dafatone
Trotsky
Jesus fuck. Just have a wet t-shirt contest. My money's on Mike.

3 on 3 is entertaining. Like, I'd watch some sort of 3 on 3 hockey league.

As an OT tiebreaker, you might as well flip a coin. At the very least, they better implement some sort of point situation where an OT loser gets a point, because it's a shame to lose in OT on something as random as 3 on 3.

In Europe (and internationally) they have a zero-sum point system where a regulation winner gets 3 points (and the loser 0), while a winner in OT or a shootout gets 2 points (and the loser gets 1). The OT is 3-on-3...

The obvious solution is to eliminate overtime entirely. Bring back ties at the end of regulation!

In all seriousness, most things in society eventually seem to be crushed under the notion that "more" or "bigger" is always better, e.g., more overtimes, more piped-in music, more TV time outs, bigger pretzels, what have you. I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but sometimes I wish we would try "less."

Imagine going to a (regular-season) game and having a really firm idea of when it's going to end? Bliss.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 11:13AM

We're not supposed to notice the average citizen is no higher on the evolutionary scale than an earwig. It's bad for species morale.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: June 08, 2020 11:21AM

Scersk '97
jtwcornell91
Dafatone
Trotsky
Jesus fuck. Just have a wet t-shirt contest. My money's on Mike.

3 on 3 is entertaining. Like, I'd watch some sort of 3 on 3 hockey league.

As an OT tiebreaker, you might as well flip a coin. At the very least, they better implement some sort of point situation where an OT loser gets a point, because it's a shame to lose in OT on something as random as 3 on 3.

In Europe (and internationally) they have a zero-sum point system where a regulation winner gets 3 points (and the loser 0), while a winner in OT or a shootout gets 2 points (and the loser gets 1). The OT is 3-on-3...

The obvious solution is to eliminate overtime entirely. Bring back ties at the end of regulation!

In all seriousness, most things in society eventually seem to be crushed under the notion that "more" or "bigger" is always better, e.g., more overtimes, more piped-in music, more TV time outs, bigger pretzels, what have you. I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but sometimes I wish we would try "less."

Imagine going to a (regular-season) game and having a really firm idea of when it's going to end? Bliss.

I too would appreciate having my lawn free of youths.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: The Rancor (73.93.141.---)
Date: June 08, 2020 11:34AM

Everyone seems fine with ties in soccer... so why not keep them in hockey? they add a layer of tradition, like sister kissing, to the sport. (but serious ties in the regular season after a 5 or 10 min ot, shootouts for in season turnies, and real OT for end of season turnies- why is this hard?)
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 12:18PM

Beeeej
Scersk '97
In all seriousness, most things in society eventually seem to be crushed under the notion that "more" or "bigger" is always better, e.g., more overtimes, more piped-in music, more TV time outs, bigger pretzels, what have you. I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but sometimes I wish we would try "less."

Imagine going to a (regular-season) game and having a really firm idea of when it's going to end? Bliss.

I too would appreciate having my lawn free of youths.

Yes, I would appreciate if they would keep it down. They're disturbing my nightly warm milk.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: KenP (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 12:35PM

Scersk '97
Beeeej
Scersk '97
In all seriousness, most things in society eventually seem to be crushed under the notion that "more" or "bigger" is always better, e.g., more overtimes, more piped-in music, more TV time outs, bigger pretzels, what have you. I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but sometimes I wish we would try "less."

Imagine going to a (regular-season) game and having a really firm idea of when it's going to end? Bliss.

I too would appreciate having my lawn free of youths.

Yes, I would appreciate if they would keep it down. They're disturbing my nightly warm milk.
Would that be cow's milk, monsieur, or mother's milk?
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: scoop85 (---.hvc.res.rr.com)
Date: June 08, 2020 01:22PM

KenP
Scersk '97
Beeeej
Scersk '97
In all seriousness, most things in society eventually seem to be crushed under the notion that "more" or "bigger" is always better, e.g., more overtimes, more piped-in music, more TV time outs, bigger pretzels, what have you. I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but sometimes I wish we would try "less."

Imagine going to a (regular-season) game and having a really firm idea of when it's going to end? Bliss.

I too would appreciate having my lawn free of youths.

Yes, I would appreciate if they would keep it down. They're disturbing my nightly warm milk.
Would that be cow's milk, monsieur, or mother's milk?

As another old dude, I am perfectly fine with ties after a 5 minute OT, but that view is clearly passé.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 02:44PM

Scersk '97
Yes, I would appreciate if they would keep it down. They're disturbing my nightly warm milk.

[www.youtube.com]
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 04:14PM

KenP
Scersk '97
Beeeej
Scersk '97
In all seriousness, most things in society eventually seem to be crushed under the notion that "more" or "bigger" is always better, e.g., more overtimes, more piped-in music, more TV time outs, bigger pretzels, what have you. I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but sometimes I wish we would try "less."

Imagine going to a (regular-season) game and having a really firm idea of when it's going to end? Bliss.

I too would appreciate having my lawn free of youths.

Yes, I would appreciate if they would keep it down. They're disturbing my nightly warm milk.
Would that be cow's milk, monsieur, or mother's milk?

Only the finest.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: osorojo (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: June 08, 2020 04:24PM

The overwhelming compulsion to ALWAYS have a clear winner and a clear loser does not reflect +90% of human endeavors.The arithmetic involved with including ties in competitive ranking is not that difficult. Save playoffs for the playoffs and make regular sports a slice of life.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: jkahn (---.73.146.216.biz.sta.networkgci.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 04:48PM

jtwcornell91
Dafatone
Trotsky
Jesus fuck. Just have a wet t-shirt contest. My money's on Mike.

3 on 3 is entertaining. Like, I'd watch some sort of 3 on 3 hockey league.

As an OT tiebreaker, you might as well flip a coin. At the very least, they better implement some sort of point situation where an OT loser gets a point, because it's a shame to lose in OT on something as random as 3 on 3.

In Europe (and internationally) they have a zero-sum point system where a regulation winner gets 3 points (and the loser 0), while a winner in OT or a shootout gets 2 points (and the loser gets 1). The OT is 3-on-3; I went to one game which went to OT, and it was entertaining/exciting, but I still really don't see the point, although I guess I'd rather have it decided in an OT with weird rules than a shootout. But the current (soon to be former) college system still seems best: full marks for winning under the standard rules in OT, and a tie if no one pulls it off.

I would also be more comfortable with giving a point for losing in OT if it didn't count the same as losing a shootout. Like make the points 5-0 for regulation, 4-1 for OT, and 3-2 for a shootout.
I'd definitely prefer to leave it as it is. I totally agree that every game should have the same value. I hate that in the NHL an overtime win and and overtime loss give a team more points than a regulation win and loss. As a fan of the Blackhawks, Islanders and any team with a Cornellian, I watch a lot of games without those teams and root for the game not to go into overtime, so only 2 points are awarded. With a 3-2-1-0 system, at least a 3 on 3 or shootout win would only be equivalent to 1 1/3 points out of 2 and the loss equivalent to 2/3 of a point out of 2.
Strangely, of the 12 members of the rules committee, which includes men's and women's hockey and D-1 through D-3, 3 of the members come from the ECAC (Dartmouth, Yale and Quinnipiac).
[web1.ncaa.org]

 
___________________________
Jeff Kahn '70 '72

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2020 05:01PM by jkahn.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 05:39PM

The third point is a sales tool for more teams to advertise a winning record. If you redo all the standings since the third point was added as 2-point games with wins and losses for all games decided in reg or OT and ties for all games tied after OT, you get a half dozen rank order changes over 15 seasons.

As shorthand, when trying to figure out a team's real record just add ties to losses. The Bruins aren't 44-14-12 .714, they're 44-26 .629. Still pretty good but not some fucking superteam. The third point pumps them up like Dump's Viagra. And just as uselessly.

Third points are bad and the people who like them are bad.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2020 05:43PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 05:58PM

scoop85
KenP
Scersk '97
Beeeej
Scersk '97
In all seriousness, most things in society eventually seem to be crushed under the notion that "more" or "bigger" is always better, e.g., more overtimes, more piped-in music, more TV time outs, bigger pretzels, what have you. I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but sometimes I wish we would try "less."

Imagine going to a (regular-season) game and having a really firm idea of when it's going to end? Bliss.

I too would appreciate having my lawn free of youths.

Yes, I would appreciate if they would keep it down. They're disturbing my nightly warm milk.
Would that be cow's milk, monsieur, or mother's milk?

As another old dude, I am perfectly fine with ties after a 5 minute OT, but that view is clearly passé.
+2

 
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: June 08, 2020 07:07PM

Scersk '97
jtwcornell91
Dafatone
Trotsky
Jesus fuck. Just have a wet t-shirt contest. My money's on Mike.

3 on 3 is entertaining. Like, I'd watch some sort of 3 on 3 hockey league.

As an OT tiebreaker, you might as well flip a coin. At the very least, they better implement some sort of point situation where an OT loser gets a point, because it's a shame to lose in OT on something as random as 3 on 3.

In Europe (and internationally) they have a zero-sum point system where a regulation winner gets 3 points (and the loser 0), while a winner in OT or a shootout gets 2 points (and the loser gets 1). The OT is 3-on-3...

The obvious solution is to eliminate overtime entirely. Bring back ties at the end of regulation!

In all seriousness, most things in society eventually seem to be crushed under the notion that "more" or "bigger" is always better, e.g., more overtimes, more piped-in music, more TV time outs, bigger pretzels, what have you. I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but sometimes I wish we would try "less."

Imagine going to a (regular-season) game and having a really firm idea of when it's going to end? Bliss.

I like having a minimal OT, because it feels weird knowing that a team down by a goal late in the game can tie, but not win. Having grown up on baseball and football, I feel that a game should be either out of reach or winnable, not something in between.

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 08, 2020 09:32PM

jtwcornell91
I like having a minimal OT, because it feels weird knowing that a team down by a goal late in the game can tie, but not win.

That doesn't follow. Of course they can win. Score faster.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: June 09, 2020 04:02AM

Small high schools in upstate New York used to play 8 man football. It's done with no tackles and two running backs. Maybe football overtimes could be played with 8.

barf
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: scoop85 (---.nyc.biz.rr.com)
Date: June 09, 2020 08:00AM

marty
Small high schools in upstate New York used to play 8 man football. It's done with no tackles and two running backs. Maybe football overtimes could be played with 8.

barf

A number of the smaller schools in upstate NY are still playing the 8 man game.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: upprdeck (38.77.26.---)
Date: June 09, 2020 09:23AM

its a number growing every year in the areas outside the bigger cities.. its at the c/d level now as teams struggle to find 20+ kids to make a team.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 09, 2020 09:40AM

I'm surprised small schools haven't shut football down. Insurance has to be crazy now. You don't see much bear baiting these days ether.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: June 09, 2020 09:59AM

Trotsky
Insurance has to be crazy now. You don't see much bear baiting these days ether.

Another victim of Title IX.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: upprdeck (38.77.26.---)
Date: June 09, 2020 01:15PM

its also still the sport that brings in the most money and has the most kids participating in many places.

maybe they should shut down soccer since way more kids are getting hurt there especially on the girls side with concussions.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2020 01:16PM by upprdeck.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-197-211.myvzw.com)
Date: June 20, 2020 12:19PM

Tie games, MLB!?

Why not just play the extra innings with two outfielders and no shortstop?
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Dafatone (---.sub-174-219-5.myvzw.com)
Date: June 20, 2020 02:25PM

marty
Tie games, MLB!?

Why not just play the extra innings with two outfielders and no shortstop?

I'm okay with it for this season and this season only.

Besides, this season isn't happening. If they somehow manage to come to an agreement, they'll get the season started and then shut it down because of covid anyway.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: French Rage (104.129.202.---)
Date: June 20, 2020 04:59PM

Steal less dumb than adding DH to the NL.

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 20, 2020 05:10PM

Any season in which the Mets have the DH or Cornell has one point ot losses is not real.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: June 20, 2020 05:16PM

Trotsky
Any season in which the Mets have the DH or Cornell has one point ot losses is not real.

On one hand, the Mets are well-built for the DH, with Cano, Davis, and Smith all being better bats than they are gloves. Well, Cano isn't much of anything, but maybe the rest that comes with being a DH will help.

On the other hand, the Mets have the best-hitting pitchers in baseball.

Also the DH sucks.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Trotsky (---.washdc.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 20, 2020 06:48PM

Mark Bomback 8:36

For what shall it profit a team if they gain the National League East and lose their soul?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2020 06:49PM by Trotsky.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: June 20, 2020 10:22PM

Trotsky
Mark Bomback 8:36

For what shall it profit a team if they gain the National League East and lose their soul?

Lord save me from more Braves division championships.
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: mas1969 (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: June 21, 2020 02:37PM

jkahn
jtwcornell91
Dafatone
Trotsky
Jesus fuck. Just have a wet t-shirt contest. My money's on Mike.

3 on 3 is entertaining. Like, I'd watch some sort of 3 on 3 hockey league.

As an OT tiebreaker, you might as well flip a coin. At the very least, they better implement some sort of point situation where an OT loser gets a point, because it's a shame to lose in OT on something as random as 3 on 3.

In Europe (and internationally) they have a zero-sum point system where a regulation winner gets 3 points (and the loser 0), while a winner in OT or a shootout gets 2 points (and the loser gets 1). The OT is 3-on-3; I went to one game which went to OT, and it was entertaining/exciting, but I still really don't see the point, although I guess I'd rather have it decided in an OT with weird rules than a shootout. But the current (soon to be former) college system still seems best: full marks for winning under the standard rules in OT, and a tie if no one pulls it off.

I would also be more comfortable with giving a point for losing in OT if it didn't count the same as losing a shootout. Like make the points 5-0 for regulation, 4-1 for OT, and 3-2 for a shootout.
I'd definitely prefer to leave it as it is. I totally agree that every game should have the same value. I hate that in the NHL an overtime win and and overtime loss give a team more points than a regulation win and loss. As a fan of the Blackhawks, Islanders and any team with a Cornellian, I watch a lot of games without those teams and root for the game not to go into overtime, so only 2 points are awarded. With a 3-2-1-0 system, at least a 3 on 3 or shootout win would only be equivalent to 1 1/3 points out of 2 and the loss equivalent to 2/3 of a point out of 2.
Strangely, of the 12 members of the rules committee, which includes men's and women's hockey and D-1 through D-3, 3 of the members come from the ECAC (Dartmouth, Yale and Quinnipiac).
[web1.ncaa.org]

I think they should give both teams two points. After all, didn't participation trophies make things more fair?
 
Re: Rules Changes?
Posted by: billhoward (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: July 01, 2020 10:56PM

So much thought and comment expended for a season that may not come to pass. Still more interesting than talking baseball in the off-season.
 

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login