http://uscollegehockey.com/news/2003/05/13_006750.php
This from the same league that foisted the god-awful shootout on college hockey for a couple years in the '90s and was also considering going to two 25-minute periods for their games around the same time.
I suspect the two-ref two-linesman system will work about as well as the two-ref one-linesman system did... not very. Whitehead's idea of pairing a new ref with a veteran sounds nice on paper, but I remember some wretchedly-called games (yes, even worse than now) when it appeared the ECAC was doing just that. The 1-1-1 system might have been worth seeing.
As for the 4-on-4 overtime, well, some serious self-censoring going on here...
Post Edited (05-14-03 10:11)
re 4x4 OT, what happens during a NC game at a Hockey East barn that goes to OT? If the 4x4 OT applies, that would be a major advantage to the Hockey East team who, presumably, would practice 4x4 more and would generally have a higher comfort level with it.
There should be one set of rules for all NCAA competition, period.
Actually, the shootout was less godawful than the OT funny business, because
1. It took place after an ordinary overtime tie, so the NCAA could just ignore it.
2. The point system was still zero sum (each game had a total of 5 points to be split up some way or another.
QuoteJason N '95 wrote:
There should be one set of rules for all NCAA competition, period.
Well, that's not quite true anyway, since some playoff and tournament games have unlimited overtimes.
Presumably any NC game would have to be played with the NC$$ rules. That's the only "reasonable" way to implement this.
[Q]Presumably any NC game would have to be played with the NC$$ rules. That's the only "reasonable" way to implement this.[/Q]
Not necessarily. If you think of baseball it's played like the home team plays it. I wouldn't be surprised to see it.
But we can still hope Hockey East snaps out of it and it doesn't pass the ADs, right? Btw, there's a moderately long thread on USCHO about it with is virtually unanimous in the belief:
2 refs - might not work, but maybe worth a shot
4x4 OT - dreadful
It's good to know the college hockey fans aren't falling for the last one.
Post Edited (05-14-03 13:33)
If there's anybody on this board more of a hockey traditionalist than I, I want them hunted down and shot, but it wouldn't kill me to see 4x4 overtimes. They are a little "gimmicky," but truth be told, watching them in Canadian juniors the last few years, they're fun and they're still hockey.
Then again, it also wouldn't kill me to abandon RS overtimes completely and simply award a tie after 60.
What's killing me slowly is the 1-point-ot-loss that mars the N. It serves no purpose othan than make non-divisional games into exhibition games. In divisional games, teams still play both ends because they don't want to give up the extra point to a standings rival and you get good hockey, but in non-divisional games it becomes pond hockey with 8 guys with a forward mentality, lots of mistakes, no coordination, and a winner invariably scored when a goalie is hung out to dry.
Post Edited (05-14-03 13:54)
[Q]Not necessarily. If you think of baseball it's played like the home team plays it. I wouldn't be surprised to see it.[/Q]
Except that's MLB. When the Big East went to the 6-foul rule a number of years ago, I believe the NCAA said that for non-conference games, the NCAA 5-foul rule applied.
[Q]What's killing me slowly is the 1-point-ot-loss that mars the N. It serves no purpose othan than make non-divisional games into exhibition games. In divisional games, teams still play both ends because they don't want to give up the extra point to a standings rival and you get good hockey, but in non-divisional games it becomes pond hockey with 8 guys with a forward mentality, lots of mistakes, no coordination, and a winner invariably scored when a goalie is hung out to dry.[/Q]
Although it has certainly confused the standings, I think the one-point-OT-loss has accomplished the NHL's goal of turning OT from a defensive 5 minutes where neither team really tries to score and is much more concerned with preventing the other team from scoring, into a time period in which both teams actually try to put the puck in the net, which, after all, the point of the game.
IMHO, that is a result of the 4x4 and the 1-point-ot-loss is an overreach. Because they adopted them simultaneously it is impossible to prove either way. if HE does one and not the other, we shall see.
QuoteGreg wrote:
If there's anybody on this board more of a hockey traditionalist than I, I want them hunted down and shot
::uhoh::
QuoteThen again, it also wouldn't kill me to abandon RS overtimes completely and simply award a tie after 60.
I've watched games with no OT, and something about it just bugs me. In pre-1996 college football, where you could score more than one point at once, it brought up entertaining dilemmas about whether to go for the win or settle for the tie. But in hockey I prefer the fact that if the game's within reach, so is the victory. If you're down you bust a gut to tie it up and then worry about the win in OT.
Incidentally, I remember a converation a few years back about the goofy alternating-posessions OT they have in college football, in which someone (quite possibly someone on this board) said it wasn't as bad as a shootout, but it would be like letting the teams alternate power plays in hockey. This was before anyone had heard of the 4x4 OT idea.
Seems like this could be a ploy to get more HE players into the NHL...
I know the Juniors try as much as possible to mirror the NHL rules for just that reason: stress that they are a development feeder system for the NHL. HE is definitely conscious of the benefit of getting skill players into the NHL, but I kinda think this is more a sop to the urban casual fan who needs gimmicks to get them into the building.
Post Edited (05-14-03 19:32)