NCAA rules committee proposes clarification to video review, changes to in-season tournaments' overtime (https://www.uscho.com/2019/06/07/ncaa-rules-committee-proposes-clarification-to-video-review-changes-to-in-season-tournaments-overtime/)
And this year we may see further OT changes.
CHN: Rules Committee Proposes Universal 3-on-3 OT (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/06/05_Rules-Committee-Proposes-.php)
USCHO: NCAA ice hockey rules committee proposes 3-on-3 overtime, shootout for conference games, in-season tournaments (https://www.uscho.com/2020/06/05/ncaa-ice-hockey-rules-committee-proposes-3-on-3-overtime-shootout-for-conference-games-in-season-tournaments/)
Jesus fuck. Just have a wet t-shirt contest. My money's on Mike.
Quote from: TrotskyJesus 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.
Damn kids with your flagpole sitting and jazz.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyJesus 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.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyJesus 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.
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.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyJesus 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.
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?)
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: Scersk '97In 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.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: Scersk '97In 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?
Quote from: KenPQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: Scersk '97In 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.
Quote from: Scersk '97Yes, I would appreciate if they would keep it down. They're disturbing my nightly warm milk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcgEN3CaqXs
Quote from: KenPQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: Scersk '97In 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. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZuWvwrEl_I)
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.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyJesus 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).
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=IHRULES
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.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: KenPQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: Scersk '97In 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
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyJesus 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.
Quote from: jtwcornell91I 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.
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::
Quote from: martySmall 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: TrotskyInsurance has to be crazy now. You don't see much bear baiting these days ether.
Another victim of Title IX.
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.
Tie games, MLB!? (https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/tie-games-altered-extra-innings-format-possibilities-for-2020-mlb-season-per-report/)
Why not just play the extra innings with two outfielders and no shortstop?
Quote from: martyTie games, MLB!? (https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/tie-games-altered-extra-innings-format-possibilities-for-2020-mlb-season-per-report/)
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.
Steal less dumb than adding DH to the NL.
Any season in which the Mets have the DH or Cornell has one point ot losses is not real.
Quote from: TrotskyAny 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.
Mark Bomback 8:36
For what shall it profit a team if they gain the National League East and lose their soul?
Quote from: TrotskyMark 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.
Quote from: jkahnQuote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: TrotskyJesus 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).
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=IHRULES
I think they should give both teams two points. After all, didn't participation trophies make things more fair?
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.
It's official; 3 on 3 and shootouts. Spinorama is verboten though.
The one change I do like though is the ability to pick which face off dot you want to take the draw in after the other team ices it.
https://www.uscho.com/2020/07/22/ncaa-approves-rule-changes-for-2020-21-hockey-season-pertaining-to-overtime-faceoffs-postgame-handshakes/
Quote from: abmarksIt's official; 3 on 3 and shootouts. Spinorama is verboten though.
The one change I do like though is the ability to pick which face off dot you want to take the draw in after the other team ices it.
https://www.uscho.com/2020/07/22/ncaa-approves-rule-changes-for-2020-21-hockey-season-pertaining-to-overtime-faceoffs-postgame-handshakes/
Ugh... 3-on-3 to decide a game is moronic.
And who the hell complained about the requirement to shake hands after a game (or multi-game playoff series)? If all the other rules are fine to impose nationally, why not that one?
Quote from: abmarksIt's official; 3 on 3 and shootouts.
https://www.madcoversite.com/missing_night.html
I dislike the 3 on 3 and shootout for regular season non-tournament games, and hand shaking and good sportsmanship is one of the parts of hockey that makes it so great. beat the hell out of each other for 60 minutes, shake like civilized people after that.
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: abmarksIt's official; 3 on 3 and shootouts. Spinorama is verboten though.
The one change I do like though is the ability to pick which face off dot you want to take the draw in after the other team ices it.
https://www.uscho.com/2020/07/22/ncaa-approves-rule-changes-for-2020-21-hockey-season-pertaining-to-overtime-faceoffs-postgame-handshakes/
Ugh... 3-on-3 to decide a game is moronic.
And who the hell complained about the requirement to shake hands after a game (or multi-game playoff series)? If all the other rules are fine to impose nationally, why not that one?
Can't they just keep their gloves on when they shake and then have the gloves sprayed with disinfectant as they leave the ice?
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: abmarksIt's official; 3 on 3 and shootouts. Spinorama is verboten though.
The one change I do like though is the ability to pick which face off dot you want to take the draw in after the other team ices it.
https://www.uscho.com/2020/07/22/ncaa-approves-rule-changes-for-2020-21-hockey-season-pertaining-to-overtime-faceoffs-postgame-handshakes/
Ugh... 3-on-3 to decide a game is moronic.
And who the hell complained about the requirement to shake hands after a game (or multi-game playoff series)? If all the other rules are fine to impose nationally, why not that one?
Can't they just keep their gloves on when they shake and then have the gloves sprayed with disinfectant as they leave the ice?
In the 3 on 3 do the players have to take their shots 6 feet from the crease?
I'm going to side with TPTB just once: the handshake can go away until this is over.
But of course the risk afforded by the handshake is EXACTLY why they shouldn't be playing at all.
The lawsuit it going to be interesting when one of these guys gets really sick.
Quote from: martyIn the 3 on 3 do the players have to take their shots 6 feet from the crease?
6 foot separation when throwing checks.
Manderville could have finally broken through to the net...
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: BeeeejQuote from: abmarksIt's official; 3 on 3 and shootouts. Spinorama is verboten though.
The one change I do like though is the ability to pick which face off dot you want to take the draw in after the other team ices it.
https://www.uscho.com/2020/07/22/ncaa-approves-rule-changes-for-2020-21-hockey-season-pertaining-to-overtime-faceoffs-postgame-handshakes/
Ugh... 3-on-3 to decide a game is moronic.
And who the hell complained about the requirement to shake hands after a game (or multi-game playoff series)? If all the other rules are fine to impose nationally, why not that one?
Can't they just keep their gloves on when they shake and then have the gloves sprayed with disinfectant as they leave the ice?
FFS people- reading comprehension? (Or actually reading source material in the first place?)
Quote from: from the uscho articleAs well, the Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules Committee voted to remove the rule that required team members to shake hands after a game. Committee members think it is best for conferences or schools to decide postgame sportsmanship protocols rather than for a national rule to establish the only postgame sportsmanship protocol.
Quote from: from the uscho articleAs well, the Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules Committee voted to remove the rule that required team members to shake hands after a game. Committee members think it is best for conferences or schools to decide postgame sportsmanship protocols rather than for a national rule to establish the only postgame sportsmanship protocol.
Kiss and make-up?
no one is making the kids play and in the ivies even less since they hold no scholie over a kids head. if you choose to go to school and to play what exactly are you going to sue about and how will any one prove it was hockey that lead to beeing sick when most of the kids are not following guidelines to start with.. if teams are being tested before every game thats about all they can hope to do. but still i dont expect hockey until jan.
Quote from: upprdeckno one is making the kids play and in the ivies even less since they hold no scholie over a kids head. if you choose to go to school and to play what exactly are you going to sue about and how will any one prove it was hockey that lead to beeing sick when most of the kids are not following guidelines to start with.. if teams are being tested before every game thats about all they can hope to do. but still i dont expect hockey until jan.
2023?
Quote from: upprdeckno one is making the kids play
This is exactly the wrong point. We are
letting them play, which is wrong, because we are careless, weak, or stupid.
Obviously they want to play, otherwise they wouldn't have had the drive to do the ten thousand things that got them to this level. Our responsibility is to be the adults who say, "you can't play."
The sin is not coercion, it's abrogation of responsibility.
They're kids. They understand in part, but want what they want.
Example: I was speaking with my niece yesterday. She'll be a freshman at UMass in the fall. She is going to campus to live in the dorms, even though all her classes will be on-line. She understands the risks, but wants as much of the college experience as possible. Although she isn't looking forward to having a swab jammed up her nose to get on campus.
FWIW, her mom has said she won't be allowed back in the house. I'm pretty sure she wasn't serious, but considering my sister was a germaphobe before Covid, you never know,
Concur with responsible supervision. This is why it is called "college hockey" rather than a "Hockey College".
Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: abmarksIt's official; 3 on 3 and shootouts. Spinorama is verboten though.
The one change I do like though is the ability to pick which face off dot you want to take the draw in after the other team ices it.
https://www.uscho.com/2020/07/22/ncaa-approves-rule-changes-for-2020-21-hockey-season-pertaining-to-overtime-faceoffs-postgame-handshakes/
Ugh... 3-on-3 to decide a game is moronic.
Ugh indeed. The article was a little unclear about some of the details; it sounds like shootouts will be up to the leagues, but will they still be ignored for tournament selection? Is the point system still 2-1-0, or are overtime wins now in a different category? The international rules include 3-on-3 OT followed by a shootout for all regular season games, and award 3 points total: 3-0 if the game is decided in regulation and 2-1 if it goes to OT or a shootout. I could live with a system like that if they had 5 point games (like Hockey East did in their shootout experiment in the 90s), and awarded them 5-0 for regulation, 4-1 for OT, and 3-2 for a shootout.
We just had 7-inning double header games in the majors. This is the darkest timeline.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: BeeeejQuote from: abmarksIt's official; 3 on 3 and shootouts. Spinorama is verboten though.
The one change I do like though is the ability to pick which face off dot you want to take the draw in after the other team ices it.
https://www.uscho.com/2020/07/22/ncaa-approves-rule-changes-for-2020-21-hockey-season-pertaining-to-overtime-faceoffs-postgame-handshakes/
Ugh... 3-on-3 to decide a game is moronic.
Ugh indeed. The article was a little unclear about some of the details; it sounds like shootouts will be up to the leagues, but will they still be ignored for tournament selection? Is the point system still 2-1-0, or are overtime wins now in a different category? The international rules include 3-on-3 OT followed by a shootout for all regular season games, and award 3 points total: 3-0 if the game is decided in regulation and 2-1 if it goes to OT or a shootout. I could live with a system like that if they had 5 point games (like Hockey East did in their shootout experiment in the 90s), and awarded them 5-0 for regulation, 4-1 for OT, and 3-2 for a shootout.
slightly more detail at chn https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2020/07/27_NCAA-Finalizes-Rules-Changes.php
QuoteTeams tied at the end of regulation will now play 5-minute, 3-on-3 period to decide a winner. If still tied, conferences or in-season tournaments can choose to use a shootout for advancement. Regular-season non-conference games would just end in a tie.
For purposes of the Pairwise, i.e. the criteria that selects the NCAA Tournament field, these overtime games will count as 55 percent of a win.
QuoteFor purposes of the Pairwise, i.e. the criteria that selects the NCAA Tournament field, these overtime games will count as 55 percent of a win.
So for us purists/ math geeks, etc. at least they have very much minimized the value of the 3 vs. 3 and shootout, since a tie is 50% of a win and they've only added an extra 5% at stake for the gimmicky conclusion. It's basically the equivalent of 1.1 points out of 2 for an overtime win, and I presume .9 out of 2 for an overtime loss. However, that's only for pairwise and it will be up to each league to decide how to handle it for standings purposes.
The ECAC can still demur, right?
This is a good opportunity to scrap overtime and have 60-min ties. The other conference don't matter. "The wogs begin at Conte."
Quote from: TrotskyThe ECAC can still demur, right?
This is a good opportunity to scrap overtime and have 60-min ties. The other conference don't matter. "The wogs begin at Conte."
No. No demurring. 3 on 3 is now ncaa wide.
Quote from: TrotskyThe ECAC can still demur, right?
This is a good opportunity to scrap overtime and have 60-min ties. The other conference don't matter. "The wogs begin at Conte."
If only, right? It's really hard to get your head around what a waste these 3-on-3 overtimes will be. Why risk player injury for 5% of a win?
Quote from: TrotskyWe just had 7-inning double header games in the majors. This is the darkest timeline.
I don't mind 7-inning games, since they were standard in the adult amateur leagues I watched in my adolescence. I always had the feeling that a 9-inning game dragged on, but maybe that was my teenage attention span. Much weirder were the 7+9 inning double headers they had in college summer ball in California, where they switched to 9+7 if the first game was tied after 7.
Quote from: jkahnQuoteFor purposes of the Pairwise, i.e. the criteria that selects the NCAA Tournament field, these overtime games will count as 55 percent of a win.
So for us purists/ math geeks, etc. at least they have very much minimized the value of the 3 vs. 3 and shootout, since a tie is 50% of a win and they've only added an extra 5% at stake for the gimmicky conclusion. It's basically the equivalent of 1.1 points out of 2 for an overtime win, and I presume .9 out of 2 for an overtime loss. However, that's only for pairwise and it will be up to each league to decide how to handle it for standings purposes.
Ugh, seriously, 55%? What about shootouts? Are those 55-45 as well, or do they just count as ties?
I guess it's just as well this season will probably not actually happen anyway.
Quote from: Scersk '97Quote from: TrotskyThe ECAC can still demur, right?
This is a good opportunity to scrap overtime and have 60-min ties. The other conference don't matter. "The wogs begin at Conte."
If only, right? It's really hard to get your head around what a waste these 3-on-3 overtimes will be. Why risk player injury for 5% of a win?
You're forgetting something: Sure, it's almost nothing for the PWR. But the conferences decide how those wins affect league standings. I'd think that there's a high probability that the the conferences give much more than a 5% bonus when counting towards Conference titles.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: Scersk '97Quote from: TrotskyThe ECAC can still demur, right?
This is a good opportunity to scrap overtime and have 60-min ties. The other conference don't matter. "The wogs begin at Conte."
If only, right? It's really hard to get your head around what a waste these 3-on-3 overtimes will be. Why risk player injury for 5% of a win?
You're forgetting something: Sure, it's almost nothing for the PWR. But the conferences decide how those wins affect league standings. I'd think that there's a high probability that the the conferences give much more than a 5% bonus when counting towards Conference titles.
Yeah, my incredulity impeded my intellect for a moment there. One hopes the ECAC would just call all games ties after 60 instead of validating this idiocy, but I know that's not realistic. In non-conference games, although we won't be playing many of those this year (if we play at all, etc. etc.), send the 4th line out for OT.
Instead of calling an even-score game a "tie" just declare both teams to be "winners" and award both teams a couple of points. A 3-on-3 game is pond hockey.
Participation trophies for each team, can't be any winners or losers this day and age
Quote from: Scersk '97One hopes the ECAC would just call all games ties after 60 instead of validating this idiocy, but I know that's not realistic.
I don't see why not. All they have to do is... do it.
Granted, it would piss off the NC$$ to be shown to be asshats that directly but, frankly (1) they
are asshats, and (2) everybody already knows, there is just the usual institutional gentlemen's agreement not to state the obvious.
c.f., everything every league has ever done with regards to charity, social awareness, etc.
It would one fun if, just once, somebody exploded the cynical culture that feeds these fucks year after year.
How about a "Hockey Lite" League where the whole GAME is 3-on-3? Fans who who prefer watching scoring rather than playing would be thrilled, hockey teams (corporations) could reduce their employee overhead by at LEAST 40% and advertisers could tailor their ads to appeal to brain-dead consumers/hockey fans.
Sudden death shoot outs, starting with a coin flip. First goal wins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp-TwWnn0dk
Quote from: osorojoHow about a "Hockey Lite" League where the whole GAME is 3-on-3? Fans who who prefer watching scoring rather than playing would be thrilled, hockey teams (corporations) could reduce their employee overhead by at LEAST 40% and advertisers could tailor their ads to appeal to brain-dead consumers/hockey fans.
With social distancing rules in effect on the ice and on the bench.
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: osorojoHow about a "Hockey Lite" League where the whole GAME is 3-on-3? Fans who who prefer watching scoring rather than playing would be thrilled, hockey teams (corporations) could reduce their employee overhead by at LEAST 40% and advertisers could tailor their ads to appeal to brain-dead consumers/hockey fans.
With social distancing rules in effect on the ice and on the bench.
Zoom video games?
Quote from: osorojoHow about a "Hockey Lite" League where the whole GAME is 3-on-3? Fans who who prefer watching scoring rather than playing would be thrilled, hockey teams (corporations) could reduce their employee overhead by at LEAST 40% and advertisers could tailor their ads to appeal to brain-dead consumers/hockey fans.
Does anyone know what the fan reaction was when the NHL eliminated the Rover and went from six skaters to five?
Quote from: ursusminorQuote from: osorojoHow about a "Hockey Lite" League where the whole GAME is 3-on-3? Fans who who prefer watching scoring rather than playing would be thrilled, hockey teams (corporations) could reduce their employee overhead by at LEAST 40% and advertisers could tailor their ads to appeal to brain-dead consumers/hockey fans.
Does anyone know what the fan reaction was when the NHL eliminated the Rover and went from six skaters to five?
Or went from halves to thirds.
Quote from: ursusminorQuote from: osorojoHow about a "Hockey Lite" League where the whole GAME is 3-on-3? Fans who who prefer watching scoring rather than playing would be thrilled, hockey teams (corporations) could reduce their employee overhead by at LEAST 40% and advertisers could tailor their ads to appeal to brain-dead consumers/hockey fans.
Does anyone know what the fan reaction was when the NHL eliminated the Rover and went from six skaters to five?
I personally have still not gotten over it.
Quote from: French RageQuote from: ursusminorQuote from: osorojoHow about a "Hockey Lite" League where the whole GAME is 3-on-3? Fans who who prefer watching scoring rather than playing would be thrilled, hockey teams (corporations) could reduce their employee overhead by at LEAST 40% and advertisers could tailor their ads to appeal to brain-dead consumers/hockey fans.
Does anyone know what the fan reaction was when the NHL eliminated the Rover and went from six skaters to five?
I personally have still not gotten over it.
I've sampled randomly a dozen articles that popped up. Mostly they're about leagues deciding to switch. A lot was about following the trend to remain competitive with other leagues. Here's one report, suggesting that fans mostly liked the wider open flow with fewer skaters. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/57013375/ I found management claims that they could see the same reaction in attendance numbers as they justified switching to fewer skaters.
i think basketball has worked out well by limiting the jump ball after scores and removing the rules on players not crossing mid court.. rule changes do help sometimes.
I can't wait for the new, three-man college basketball season to reopen. Wait! is 3-on-3 college basketball only in case of ties after regulation play expires? Anyway, expectations are that swarms of new spectators who never cared for 5-on-5 basketball will flock to games due to the possibility they could watch some 3-on-3. Rumor has it the NBA is considering going to a game of HORSE to settle ties, to the delight of many potential fans.
Quote from: osorojoI can't wait for the new, three-man college basketball season to reopen. Wait! is 3-on-3 college basketball only in case of ties after regulation play expires? Anyway, expectations are that swarms of new spectators who never cared for 5-on-5 basketball will flock to games due to the possibility they could watch some 3-on-3. Rumor has it the NBA is considering going to a game of HORSE to settle ties, to the delight of many potential fans.
Try discussing Twenty20 with a fan of Test Cricket sometime. ::uhoh::
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: osorojoI can't wait for the new, three-man college basketball season to reopen. Wait! is 3-on-3 college basketball only in case of ties after regulation play expires? Anyway, expectations are that swarms of new spectators who never cared for 5-on-5 basketball will flock to games due to the possibility they could watch some 3-on-3. Rumor has it the NBA is considering going to a game of HORSE to settle ties, to the delight of many potential fans.
Try discussing Twenty20 with a fan of Test Cricket sometime. ::uhoh::
2020 has a way of pissing off all sports fans. :P
Nicely done.
it is inevitably always true that the people with money invested in the game - owners, tv networks, advertisers - spend more time thinking about what people who are hockey-curious but not hockey fans care about than hockey fans do. if you asked those people what you would probably find is that they hate ties. you can put a value judgment on it or on america, but ties are basically anathema to american sports. games that can last forever are also kind of anathema to televised sports. the businesses are bigger than the desires of hardcore fans, and if you think that sucks, well, a lot of things suck when they are ripped from their original environments. the olympics are a festival of sports excellence that is also a grotesque political operation and a pathos factory where the struggles of the athletes get 30x the airtime that the sports themselves do.
3x3 hockey is a different thing than hockey but if the sport is going to treat ties as a bad outcome - something everyone involved financially clearly agrees on - i'd rather have a 3x3 before a shootout instead of proceeding right to the shootout, which is an even more egregious bastardization of the sport than a wide open OT. Also 3x3 is fun.
Quote from: ugartethe olympics are a festival of sports excellence that is also a grotesque political operation and a pathos factory where the struggles of the athletes get 30x the airtime that the sports themselves do.
One of the few consolations of the march of time is how one can now—at least, if one has enough money to wring coverage out of NBC's grubby hands or is sufficiently savvy to employ a VPN—watch the Olympics without mediation. When the real Olympics are on, it's non-stop cross-country skiing, nordic combined, biathlon, and alpine skiing for me.
What a difference in this generation!
The 2 iron laws of aesthetics:
1. Quality and broad appeal are mutually exclusive.
2. The only way to keep a good thing good is to keep money out of it.
NHL playoffs off to a great start - OT HOCKEY.
In the 5th OT for all the purists out there :).
We got to see a couple hours of great competition decide an ice hockey game instead of a few minutes of 3-on-3 pond hockey. The money people - television programmers and team owners - probably disliked that game?!
everyone on knew who was watching was fed up with the game once it got beyond 2 OTs. The majority of people watching a game are the fans of the teams, bettors, fans of hockey.
bettors were not happy
fans of teams were happy mostly
hockey fans probably didnt watch the whole thing mostly
Quote from: upprdeckeveryone on knew who was watching was fed up with the game once it got beyond 2 OTs. The majority of people watching a game are the fans of the teams, bettors, fans of hockey.
bettors were not happy
fans of teams were happy mostly
hockey fans probably didnt watch the whole thing mostly
I remember some four or five OT games in the past with full 5v5 20 minute OT, and those were so dramatic to watch even though it kept me up late into the wee hours of the morning to watch. No idea who teams were, and I wasn't a fan of those particular teams either it was just fascinating.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: upprdeckeveryone on knew who was watching was fed up with the game once it got beyond 2 OTs. The majority of people watching a game are the fans of the teams, bettors, fans of hockey.
bettors were not happy
fans of teams were happy mostly
hockey fans probably didnt watch the whole thing mostly
I remember some four or five OT games in the past with full 5v5 20 minute OT, and those were so dramatic to watch even though it kept me up late into the wee hours of the morning to watch. No idea who teams were, and I wasn't a fan of those particular teams either it was just fascinating.
Devils-Sabres in 1994 playoffs game 6 went 4 ot. I wasn't happy with the outcome, but it's one of the games I enjoyed watching the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeQaOlz22Fk
Caps-Isles 4-ot Easter Morning game the best Game 7 I've ever seen. God bless Pat LaFontaine.
Quote from: toddloseQuote from: abmarksQuote from: upprdeckeveryone on knew who was watching was fed up with the game once it got beyond 2 OTs. The majority of people watching a game are the fans of the teams, bettors, fans of hockey.
bettors were not happy
fans of teams were happy mostly
hockey fans probably didnt watch the whole thing mostly
I remember some four or five OT games in the past with full 5v5 20 minute OT, and those were so dramatic to watch even though it kept me up late into the wee hours of the morning to watch. No idea who teams were, and I wasn't a fan of those particular teams either it was just fascinating.
Devils-Sabres in 1994 playoffs game 6 went 4 ot. I wasn't happy with the outcome, but it's one of the games I enjoyed watching the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeQaOlz22Fk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Stanley_Cup_Finals
The 3OT Game 4 from that series was the game I'd say started me out as a hockey fan. I just remember that game being thrilling, and even though I didn't care about hockey, didn't care about either of the teams involved, and barely knew what was happening I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.
Quote from: TrotskyCaps-Isles 4-ot Easter Morning game the best Game 7 I've ever seen. God bless Pat LaFontaine.
I remember that - bill clement and gary green on the tv call. I think bill clement was wearing the tie on his head by OT #4. I remember some very strange things.
Quote from: TrotskyCaps-Isles 4-ot Easter Morning game the best Game 7 I've ever seen. God bless Pat LaFontaine.
That was a great game. I remember one of the announcers (Bill Clement?) wearing his tie like a head band by the end of the game.
Edit: Hadn't read Rita's post when I wrote this.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: upprdeckeveryone on knew who was watching was fed up with the game once it got beyond 2 OTs. The majority of people watching a game are the fans of the teams, bettors, fans of hockey.
bettors were not happy
fans of teams were happy mostly
hockey fans probably didnt watch the whole thing mostly
I remember some four or five OT games in the past with full 5v5 20 minute OT, and those were so dramatic to watch even though it kept me up late into the wee hours of the morning to watch. No idea who teams were, and I wasn't a fan of those particular teams either it was just fascinating.
i'll just say again - we're the weird ones! 7+ periods of hockey, at least 4 of which are scoreless, is not for the casual fan. The hockey fan and purist in me likes the occassional eternal game - especially a long game 7 - but I also am not all that purist and understand why it's bad for business.
Quote from: ugarteit is inevitably always true that the people with money invested in the game - owners, tv networks, advertisers - spend more time thinking about what people who are hockey-curious but not hockey fans care about than hockey fans do. if you asked those people what you would probably find is that they hate ties. you can put a value judgment on it or on america, but ties are basically anathema to american sports. games that can last forever are also kind of anathema to televised sports. the businesses are bigger than the desires of hardcore fans, and if you think that sucks, well, a lot of things suck when they are ripped from their original environments. the olympics are a festival of sports excellence that is also a grotesque political operation and a pathos factory where the struggles of the athletes get 30x the airtime that the sports themselves do.
3x3 hockey is a different thing than hockey but if the sport is going to treat ties as a bad outcome - something everyone involved financially clearly agrees on - i'd rather have a 3x3 before a shootout instead of proceeding right to the shootout, which is an even more egregious bastardization of the sport than a wide open OT. Also 3x3 is fun.
Much like elections, the political fans drive the primary vote, but a lot more political curious vote in the general election.
If the NHL were only concerned about "hockey fans" we'd probably still have just 6 teams. Sometimes moving to appeal to a wider audience is worthwhile.
Quote from: Jim HylaIf the NHL were only concerned about "hockey fans" we'd probably still have just 6 teams. Sometimes moving to appeal to a wider audience is worthwhile.
In high school someone told me "the Rangers have 20,000 fans and they all have season tickets."
Smart money should rush out and start a for - Television 3-on-3 professional hockey league with 10 minute periods - and settle ties with the best of eleven penalty shots. Maybe make the goals bigger too in order to get more scoring. It's what fans come to see?
Quote from: ugarteIn high school someone told me "the Rangers have 20,000 fans and they all have season tickets."
I don't know when you were in high school, but I graduated in 1960. My friends and I would catch the subway at 179th Street to the old MSG. With a GO (General Organization) card, the closest thing to a student ID then, general admission was $1.25. We'd sit in the second row of the top tier. The first row was taken by some older guys from New Jersey that would send someone early to "reserve" the first row - who's gonna argue. Rangers Gump Worsley, Andy Bathgate, Lou Fontinato . . . Les Canadiens Richard brothers, Jean Beliveau, Jacques Plante, "Boom Boom" Geoffrion . . . Leafs Frank Mahovlich, Tim Horton (now just a donut shop) . . . Wonderful hockey memories, to be surpassed only by Ned's great teams.
Quote from: toddloseQuote from: abmarksQuote from: upprdeckeveryone on knew who was watching was fed up with the game once it got beyond 2 OTs. The majority of people watching a game are the fans of the teams, bettors, fans of hockey.
bettors were not happy
fans of teams were happy mostly
hockey fans probably didnt watch the whole thing mostly
I remember some four or five OT games in the past with full 5v5 20 minute OT, and those were so dramatic to watch even though it kept me up late into the wee hours of the morning to watch. No idea who teams were, and I wasn't a fan of those particular teams either it was just fascinating.
Devils-Sabres in 1994 playoffs game 6 went 4 ot. I wasn't happy with the outcome, but it's one of the games I enjoyed watching the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeQaOlz22Fk
Went to that game in Buffalo. Was a very long evening and early morning.
Quote from: George64Quote from: ugarteIn high school someone told me "the Rangers have 20,000 fans and they all have season tickets."
I don't know when you were in high school, but I graduated in 1960. My friends and I would catch the subway at 179th Street to the old MSG. With a GO (General Organization) card, the closest thing to a student ID then, general admission was $1.25. We'd sit in the second row of the top tier. The first row was taken by some older guys from New Jersey that would send someone early to "reserve" the first row - who's gonna argue. Rangers Gump Worsley, Andy Bathgate, Lou Fontinato . . . Les Canadiens Richard brothers, Jean Beliveau, Jacques Plante, "Boom Boom" Geoffrion . . . Leafs Frank Mahovlich, Tim Horton (now just a donut shop) . . . Wonderful hockey memories, to be surpassed only by Ned's great teams.
Good stuff right here.