Quote from: martyAHCA (https://www.therinklive.com/mens-division-1/nchc/college-hockey-coaches-hear-about-the-potential-transformation-of-ncaa-sports).
There was lots of debate on this board about 3x3 OT and how little OT wins were valued. The article Marty found has has some actual quantitative analysis and is the best argument I've seen for playing traditional overtime and not this silly stuff.
TLDR: ot wins and losses are irrelevant with current rules and might as well have just been ties.
Here's the portion about overtime:
QuoteOvertime a discussion point
Coaches also discussed the current overtime procedure, which began two seasons ago.
During the regular season, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes straight into a five-minute, three-on-three overtime.
If someone scores in the three-on-three, the game goes down as a win or a loss on their record, but instead of a full value win, it's counted as 55 percent for the winning team and 45 percent for the losing team in the Pairwise Rankings formula. Therefore, it's valued far closer to a tie than a win.
There were 129 college hockey games decided in overtime prior to the NCAA tournament selection show this season. Using CHN's Pairwise Customizer tool , the Herald changed all 129 overtime results to ties to see how much things would have changed if overtime wasn't a thing.
The answer: Almost nothing.
If there was no such thing as overtime, and every game that was tied after 60 minutes went into the books that way, the exact same 16 teams would have been in the NCAA tournament.
The No. 1 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 2 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 3 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 4 seeds would have been the exact same four teams.
There would have been just two differences. Western Michigan and Denver would have flip-flopped spots at No. 3 and 4 overall, while St. Cloud State and Notre Dame would have flipped at Nos. 9 and 10. The committee ended up flipping the Huskies and Irish, anyway, to avoid a UND-St. Cloud State first-round matchup.
When this overtime format was instituted, coaches were concerned that overtime wins and losses would play an outsized role, but clearly, they're having very little impact on the
Pairwise Rankings and who goes to the NCAA tournament
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: martyAHCA (https://www.therinklive.com/mens-division-1/nchc/college-hockey-coaches-hear-about-the-potential-transformation-of-ncaa-sports).
There was lots of debate on this board about 3x3 OT and how little OT wins were valued. The article Marty found has has some actual quantitative analysis and is the best argument I've seen for playing traditional overtime and not this silly stuff.
TLDR: ot wins and losses are irrelevant with current rules and might as well have just been ties.
Here's the portion about overtime:
QuoteOvertime a discussion point
Coaches also discussed the current overtime procedure, which began two seasons ago.
During the regular season, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes straight into a five-minute, three-on-three overtime.
If someone scores in the three-on-three, the game goes down as a win or a loss on their record, but instead of a full value win, it's counted as 55 percent for the winning team and 45 percent for the losing team in the Pairwise Rankings formula. Therefore, it's valued far closer to a tie than a win.
There were 129 college hockey games decided in overtime prior to the NCAA tournament selection show this season. Using CHN's Pairwise Customizer tool , the Herald changed all 129 overtime results to ties to see how much things would have changed if overtime wasn't a thing.
The answer: Almost nothing.
If there was no such thing as overtime, and every game that was tied after 60 minutes went into the books that way, the exact same 16 teams would have been in the NCAA tournament.
The No. 1 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 2 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 3 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 4 seeds would have been the exact same four teams.
There would have been just two differences. Western Michigan and Denver would have flip-flopped spots at No. 3 and 4 overall, while St. Cloud State and Notre Dame would have flipped at Nos. 9 and 10. The committee ended up flipping the Huskies and Irish, anyway, to avoid a UND-St. Cloud State first-round matchup.
When this overtime format was instituted, coaches were concerned that overtime wins and losses would play an outsized role, but clearly, they're having very little impact on the
Pairwise Rankings and who goes to the NCAA tournament
The article is wrong in that the current 3x3 OT neutralizes OT to the point of near meaninglessness when considering NCAA ranking. Rather than having little impact it has little impact except for teams who would have won or lost a 5x5 OT. A secondary impact is that it gives the teams points for league standings that impact the league tournament seeding. A corollary and likely unintended consequence is that teams don't play "real" overtime until the beginning of post-season play. There is no 5x5 sudden death until March when it matters.
An OT or shootout win feels good in the moment but skews the league ranking in one direction while having almost no effect on pairwise. Rather than "very little impact" it truly screws everything up.
Quote from: martyAn OT or shootout win feels good in the moment but skews the league ranking in one direction while having almost no effect on pairwise. Rather than "very little impact" it truly screws everything up.
Also, like the shoot out and the DH, it aesthetically and morally degrades us both as individuals and as a species.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyAn OT or shootout win feels good in the moment but skews the league ranking in one direction while having almost no effect on pairwise. Rather than "very little impact" it truly screws everything up.
Also, like the shoot out and the DH, it aesthetically and morally degrades us both as individuals and as a species.
In extra innings:
"Who's on first?"
No. WTF is on second?
Quote from: martyQuote from: abmarksQuote from: martyAHCA (https://www.therinklive.com/mens-division-1/nchc/college-hockey-coaches-hear-about-the-potential-transformation-of-ncaa-sports).
There was lots of debate on this board about 3x3 OT and how little OT wins were valued. The article Marty found has has some actual quantitative analysis and is the best argument I've seen for playing traditional overtime and not this silly stuff.
TLDR: ot wins and losses are irrelevant with current rules and might as well have just been ties.
Here's the portion about overtime:
QuoteOvertime a discussion point
Coaches also discussed the current overtime procedure, which began two seasons ago.
During the regular season, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes straight into a five-minute, three-on-three overtime.
If someone scores in the three-on-three, the game goes down as a win or a loss on their record, but instead of a full value win, it's counted as 55 percent for the winning team and 45 percent for the losing team in the Pairwise Rankings formula. Therefore, it's valued far closer to a tie than a win.
There were 129 college hockey games decided in overtime prior to the NCAA tournament selection show this season. Using CHN's Pairwise Customizer tool , the Herald changed all 129 overtime results to ties to see how much things would have changed if overtime wasn't a thing.
The answer: Almost nothing.
If there was no such thing as overtime, and every game that was tied after 60 minutes went into the books that way, the exact same 16 teams would have been in the NCAA tournament.
The No. 1 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 2 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 3 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 4 seeds would have been the exact same four teams.
There would have been just two differences. Western Michigan and Denver would have flip-flopped spots at No. 3 and 4 overall, while St. Cloud State and Notre Dame would have flipped at Nos. 9 and 10. The committee ended up flipping the Huskies and Irish, anyway, to avoid a UND-St. Cloud State first-round matchup.
When this overtime format was instituted, coaches were concerned that overtime wins and losses would play an outsized role, but clearly, they're having very little impact on the
Pairwise Rankings and who goes to the NCAA tournament
The article is wrong in that the current 3x3 OT neutralizes OT to the point of near meaninglessness when considering NCAA ranking. Rather than having little impact it has little impact except for teams who would have won or lost a 5x5 OT.
So the real comparison would be to take 2019 and turn all RS OT wins into ties.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: martyQuote from: abmarksQuote from: martyAHCA (https://www.therinklive.com/mens-division-1/nchc/college-hockey-coaches-hear-about-the-potential-transformation-of-ncaa-sports).
There was lots of debate on this board about 3x3 OT and how little OT wins were valued. The article Marty found has has some actual quantitative analysis and is the best argument I've seen for playing traditional overtime and not this silly stuff.
TLDR: ot wins and losses are irrelevant with current rules and might as well have just been ties.
Here's the portion about overtime:
QuoteOvertime a discussion point
Coaches also discussed the current overtime procedure, which began two seasons ago.
During the regular season, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes straight into a five-minute, three-on-three overtime.
If someone scores in the three-on-three, the game goes down as a win or a loss on their record, but instead of a full value win, it's counted as 55 percent for the winning team and 45 percent for the losing team in the Pairwise Rankings formula. Therefore, it's valued far closer to a tie than a win.
There were 129 college hockey games decided in overtime prior to the NCAA tournament selection show this season. Using CHN's Pairwise Customizer tool , the Herald changed all 129 overtime results to ties to see how much things would have changed if overtime wasn't a thing.
The answer: Almost nothing.
If there was no such thing as overtime, and every game that was tied after 60 minutes went into the books that way, the exact same 16 teams would have been in the NCAA tournament.
The No. 1 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 2 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 3 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 4 seeds would have been the exact same four teams.
There would have been just two differences. Western Michigan and Denver would have flip-flopped spots at No. 3 and 4 overall, while St. Cloud State and Notre Dame would have flipped at Nos. 9 and 10. The committee ended up flipping the Huskies and Irish, anyway, to avoid a UND-St. Cloud State first-round matchup.
When this overtime format was instituted, coaches were concerned that overtime wins and losses would play an outsized role, but clearly, they're having very little impact on the
Pairwise Rankings and who goes to the NCAA tournament
The article is wrong in that the current 3x3 OT neutralizes OT to the point of near meaninglessness when considering NCAA ranking. Rather than having little impact it has little impact except for teams who would have won or lost a 5x5 OT.
So the real comparison would be to take 2019 and turn all RS OT wins into ties.
Yes! Thank you in advance.
Looks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.
Props to Adam for the clarifying article (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2022/10/24_Understanding-the-Pairwise.php);
Quote from: Adam @ CHNThe Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.
Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.
This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.
Quote from: abmarksLooks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.
Props to Adam for the clarifying article (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2022/10/24_Understanding-the-Pairwise.php);
Quote from: Adam @ CHNThe Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.
Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.
This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.
If they had any hockey sense they'd play a ten-minute OT 6 on 6 and count a win as a win, a loss as a loss and a tie as a tie. Simple.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: abmarksLooks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.
Props to Adam for the clarifying article (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2022/10/24_Understanding-the-Pairwise.php);
Quote from: Adam @ CHNThe Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.
Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.
This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.
If they had any hockey sense they'd play a ten-minute OT 6 on 6 and count a win as a win, a loss as a loss and a tie as a tie. Simple.
10 minutes with or without cutting the ice? With fresh ice, the puck flies truer, perhaps increases the odds of a goal. For the road, instead of being on the bus at 9:45 pm, it's 10:15, you get to your Friday night hotel a half-hour later and from a Harvard or Dartmouth Saturday game you get back in Ithaca just before 4 a.m. if the team doesn't overnight Saturday.
Longer term, fans – read, people younger than many of us – are more comfortable with 3-on-3 and/or shootouts to decide hockey games. Specialists matter more. So coaches recruit with an eye to who's good at penalty shots, just as lacrosse recruits for FOGOs and football recruits place-kickers.
In exchange, I want lacrosse to bring back a four- or five-minute overtime (not first-goal wins) and only after that is it sudden death.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: abmarksLooks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.
Props to Adam for the clarifying article (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2022/10/24_Understanding-the-Pairwise.php);
Quote from: Adam @ CHNThe Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.
Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.
This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.
If they had any hockey sense they'd play a ten-minute OT 6 on 6 and count a win as a win, a loss as a loss and a tie as a tie. Simple.
10 minutes with or without cutting the ice? With fresh ice, the puck flies truer, perhaps increases the odds of a goal. For the road, instead of being on the bus at 9:45 pm, it's 10:15, you get to your Friday night hotel a half-hour later and from a Harvard or Dartmouth Saturday game you get back in Ithaca just before 4 a.m. if the team doesn't overnight Saturday.
Longer term, fans – read, people younger than many of us – are more comfortable with 3-on-3 and/or shootouts to decide hockey games. Specialists matter more. So coaches recruit with an eye to who's good at penalty shots, just as lacrosse recruits for FOGOs and football recruits place-kickers.
In exchange, I want lacrosse to bring back a four- or five-minute overtime (not first-goal wins) and only after that is it sudden death.
Iirc in the old days they always did the ice prior to OT (I'm recalling the late 70s early 80s games at UVM, and assuming all schools did the same)
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: abmarksLooks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.
Props to Adam for the clarifying article (https://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2022/10/24_Understanding-the-Pairwise.php);
Quote from: Adam @ CHNThe Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.
Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.
This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.
If they had any hockey sense they'd play a ten-minute OT 6 on 6 and count a win as a win, a loss as a loss and a tie as a tie. Simple.
10 minutes with or without cutting the ice? With fresh ice, the puck flies truer, perhaps increases the odds of a goal. For the road, instead of being on the bus at 9:45 pm, it's 10:15, you get to your Friday night hotel a half-hour later and from a Harvard or Dartmouth Saturday game you get back in Ithaca just before 4 a.m. if the team doesn't overnight Saturday.
Longer term, fans – read, people younger than many of us – are more comfortable with 3-on-3 and/or shootouts to decide hockey games. Specialists matter more. So coaches recruit with an eye to who's good at penalty shots, just as lacrosse recruits for FOGOs and football recruits place-kickers.
In exchange, I want lacrosse to bring back a four- or five-minute overtime (not first-goal wins) and only after that is it sudden death.
Two four-minute overtimes with change of goal, with no first-goal-wins. If still tied, sudden death OT.
No overtime at all. A tie is a tie.
Fight Creeping Meatballism.
Quote from: TrotskyNo overtime at all. A tie is a tie.
Fight Creeping Meatballism.
I'd give a 5 minute OT. Then a tie is a tie.
The 5-1-0-0-2-1 record per se is absolutely moronic.
is soccer so much easier that they can play with no subs 30 min no sudden death OTS but college kids cant play 5 min or live with a tie results?
It has nothing to do with the players. It's the idiocy of marketing. We should end it with a homerun derby.
The fans who attend the game do not want to see it end in a tie. It's really that simple.
Quote from: BearLoverThe fans who attend the game do not want to see it end in a tie. It's really that simple.
Bullshit
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: BearLoverThe fans who attend the game do not want to see it end in a tie. It's really that simple.
Bullshit
I'm with BearLover on this one. In my world, a tie is like kissing your sister... And, neither of my sisters are appealing to me in that regard! ;-)
I'm weird. I'd prefer a tie but I don't hate shootouts. What I hate is 3v3 sudden death hockey. It doesn't feel like hockey.
At least shootouts don't claim to be hockey.
OK, if you don't want it to end in a tie, then we need to compromise and say a win is a win, regardless of how you got that win. You either win, lose, or tie; otherwise we end up with 7 different columns in the standings.
Gender is a spectrum; hockey games are not.
Quote from: rediceQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: BearLoverThe fans who attend the game do not want to see it end in a tie. It's really that simple.
Bullshit
I'm with BearLover on this one. In my world, a tie is like kissing your sister... And, neither of my sisters are appealing to me in that regard! ;-)
You know, some wiseass made up that trite phrase and now too many people think it's true. It's like an asshole said his election was stolen and now one-third of the country believes it. Both nonsense. Two teams play tied after 65 or 70 minutes then that's the fair and just outcome. Some artificial and dorky scheme to ensure each team gets a point or two in one of five or six categories is just ridiculous.
Quote from: BearLoverThe fans who attend the game do not want to see it end in a tie. It's really that simple.
+1
I don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
Quote from: billhowardQuote from: BearLoverThe fans who attend the game do not want to see it end in a tie. It's really that simple.
+1
Where's the study that shows this? And it's only a "win" if one team gets two points and the other gets none. Otherwise it's something else that is at the whim of the current committee.
Quote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
Show me the study.
If you want to reduce the number of times, the best way is to make it easier to score. A game with eight or ten goals is less likely to end in a tie than one with two or four. Just get rid of the absurd amount of padding today's goalies wear and make them have to make saves with a glove or stick or blocker, not just by standing in the right place. Surely today's technology can protect a goalie without making him or her look like the Michelin man.
Quote from: French RageGender is a spectrum; hockey games are not.
Argument (https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison) that characterizing gender as a spectrum is just maintaining the old hierarchical prison.
Quote from: BearLoverThe fans who attend the game do not want to see it end in a tie. It's really that simple.
Not all of them, and the sport is harmed by pandering to the bottom.
Quote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
Quote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
Bring back the digital puck tail!
Quote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
39 failures before they got WD 40.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
39 failures before they got WD 40.
And 7 before they got to Preparation H!
Quote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
And I shudder to contemplate what 89 might be.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
39 failures before they got WD 40.
Don't even ask about Preparations A-G.
Quote from: French RageQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
39 failures before they got WD 40.
And 7 before they got to Preparation H!
Dang it!!
Quote from: French RageQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
39 failures before they got WD 40.
And 7 before they got to Preparation H!
23 before they got to SpaceX. Don't ask.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
Show me the study.
If you want to reduce the number of times, the best way is to make it easier to score. A game with eight or ten goals is less likely to end in a tie than one with two or four. Just get rid of the absurd amount of padding today's goalies wear and make them have to make saves with a glove or stick or blocker, not just by standing in the right place. Surely today's technology can protect a goalie without making him or her look like the Michelin man.
I don't have a study. My assumption that the casual fan prefers a game to have a winner and a loser is based on having attended a lot of sporting events with casual fans, and the fact the NHL made this change. Ties are always a buzzkill; they feel closer to a loss than a win. I think it makes sense that someone who pays money to watch a competition gets to see a winner of that competition.
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing.
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
39 failures before they got WD 40.
Don't even ask about Preparations A-G.
Fine Ferrari joke.
Quote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
What makes anyone think there's a connection between ties and fans in the seats? What fan said "I don't go to games because they might have a boring tie?"
Just look at soccer around the world...all the ties aren't exactly stopping stadiums from selling 30,40,50,60,70,or even 80k tickets a game.
Given that there's been no serious consideration of declaring games over at the end of regulation, the question is better framed as "what's the best/preferred way to decide a game after regulation time?"
If we surveyed fans about ot preferences and their options for OT were 5min, 10 min, 20min, 20min but play until someone scores, 3x3 and shootouts, I wouldn't be surprised if bearlover was right (for once) and 3x3 and/or shootouts was the winner.
But if fans were asked "what's the main reason you don't (or didn't) go to games", I can't imagine that the OT format is going to be high up on that list.
One other important factor that's not been mentioned in this thread. For NHL games, TV matters. I'd think that the networks would prefer shorter and more predictable lengths for overtime so that they can stick to their schedules.
For me, I want the 10minute OT 5x5. Too easy to play for the tie in a 5 minute OT and 3x3 and shootouts are way too gimicky.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
What makes anyone think there's a connection between ties and fans in the seats? What fan said "I don't go to games because they might have a boring tie?"
Just look at soccer around the world...all the ties aren't exactly stopping stadiums from selling 30,40,50,60,70,or even 80k tickets a game.
Given that there's been no serious consideration of declaring games over at the end of regulation, the question is better framed as "what's the best/preferred way to decide a game after regulation time?"
If we surveyed fans about ot preferences and their options for OT were 5min, 10 min, 20min, 20min but play until someone scores, 3x3 and shootouts, I wouldn't be surprised if bearlover was right (for once) and 3x3 and/or shootouts was the winner.
But if fans were asked "what's the main reason you don't (or didn't) go to games", I can't imagine that the OT format is going to be high up on that list.
One other important factor that's not been mentioned in this thread. For NHL games, TV matters. I'd think that the networks would prefer shorter and more predictable lengths for overtime so that they can stick to their schedules.
For me, I want the 10minute OT 5x5. Too easy to play for the tie in a 5 minute OT and 3x3 and shootouts are way too gimicky.
Wish I could buy you a drink.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioWish I could buy you a drink.
Well, there's always Venmo **]
Quote from: abmarksJust look at soccer around the world...all the ties aren't exactly stopping stadiums from selling 30,40,50,60,70,or even 80k tickets a game.
1.
Come for the game. Stay for the riot.2a. Wait'll we seduce them with fútbol americano. We'll take CTE global.
2b. Love how in a few short years the NFL has gone from "there is no gambling" to the announcers talking about betting lines.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
What makes anyone think there's a connection between ties and fans in the seats? What fan said "I don't go to games because they might have a boring tie?"
Just look at soccer around the world...all the ties aren't exactly stopping stadiums from selling 30,40,50,60,70,or even 80k tickets a game.
Given that there's been no serious consideration of declaring games over at the end of regulation, the question is better framed as "what's the best/preferred way to decide a game after regulation time?"
If we surveyed fans about ot preferences and their options for OT were 5min, 10 min, 20min, 20min but play until someone scores, 3x3 and shootouts, I wouldn't be surprised if bearlover was right (for once) and 3x3 and/or shootouts was the winner.
But if fans were asked "what's the main reason you don't (or didn't) go to games", I can't imagine that the OT format is going to be high up on that list.
One other important factor that's not been mentioned in this thread. For NHL games, TV matters. I'd think that the networks would prefer shorter and more predictable lengths for overtime so that they can stick to their schedules.
For me, I want the 10minute OT 5x5. Too easy to play for the tie in a 5 minute OT and 3x3 and shootouts are way too gimicky.
Hell, I'll use myself as an example. I didn't care the slightest bit about hockey until I got to go to a game at Cornell my freshman year and the Lynah atmosphere got me into it. Hockey is a sport you have to watch and appreciate in person before you can get into on TV. If there was a reason I was not into hockey before, it was because neither of my parents were, the area I grew up in (NoVa) was not, and it's frankly something you can't really get into by just turning on the TV, glowing puck or not. The OT rules did not factor in in the least. It's not baseball or football, which you can fall bass-ackwards into in this country, it's a sport you have to have a specific connection to get into, and cute gimmicks aren't going to be the deciding factor.
Ties are the hockey gods' way of saying nobody deserved to win. We thwart Their will at our peril.
Some moron at ESPN decided Americans are too stupid for ties. This is fallacious reasoning, since, while Americans are indeed stupid, Europeans are stupid too, and they can handle them.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: French RageQuote from: BearLoverI don't like 3x3 or shootouts either. But to the casual fan, the type of person hockey is trying to attract, there is a clear distaste for ties. The goal is to fill the seats, not to maximize fairness. The NHL does the same thing
The previous 87 ideas to bring casual fans into hockey didn't work, but I have a good feeling about idea 88!
I wouldn't be surprised if bearlover was right (for once)
You've been strangely obsessed with me for awhile now.
Quote from: billhoward2b. Love how in a few short years the NFL has gone from "there is no gambling" to the announcers talking about betting lines.
I grew up watching Jimmy the Greek on CBS's pre-game show, so I'm pretty sure sportscasters have always acknowledged gambling in the NFL.
Quote from: jtwcornell91Quote from: billhoward2b. Love how in a few short years the NFL has gone from "there is no gambling" to the announcers talking about betting lines.
I grew up watching Jimmy the Greek on CBS's pre-game show, so I'm pretty sure sportscasters have always acknowledged gambling in the NFL.
Back around 2011 or so I had the opportunity to press Patriots President Jonathan Kraft on the NFL's Gambling hypocrisy. At the time some NFL teams (or all, I dont remember exactly) had just announced that they were going to lend the team names to some scratch-off lottery tickets somewere in the country. Also pointed out that given how much gambling interest there is in the NFL (which indirectly drove a lot of revenue from increased TV viewership etc) that it seemed hypocritical to be so steadfast at the time against legalized Gambling.
In a nutshell, his response was that the resistance was really only from a small number or elderly, powerful owners who'd been around to see what the original Paul Hurnung fiasco had done to the game. He felt that once those owners were either out of the game, died off, or caved in, that the NFL would jump in headfirst. The guy's not dumb- there was a multi-billion dollar Illegal market at the time which would only grow.
Putting on my 2020's hat, I'd guess that while some old line owners like these three below had to pass on, the final hurdles were Jerry Jones to see the writing (greenbacks) on the wall, the Supreme Court ruling on the Wire Act and multiple states legalizing sports betting shortly thereafter.
The Cardinals Bill Bidwell died in 2019
THe Lions William CLay Ford died in 2014
THe Saint's Tom Benson died in 2015
Another piece of evidence: Going into the last day of the Deutsche Eishockey Liga season yesterday, Frankfurt was two points ahead of Berlin for the last playoff spot. The two were playing simultaneously versus different opponents, and when both games went into overtime, Frankfurt clinched the playoffs, since they were guaranteed one point and Berlin could get no more than two. (In the end, Frankfurt won in OT, and Berlin lost in a shootout.)