Generic Off Season Thread

[css228]

Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

[jtwcornell91]

Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

But I think the point of 10 minute overtimes is that they're the longest you can do without resurfacing first.   (IIRC; it's been a while since I've seen one now that shootouts are so common.)  I wouldn't mind a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing, but it would lead to any OT game taking significantly longer.  Of course, now that non-televised games only last 2:10...

[ugarte]

Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

I'm with you, Rita.  Even more so in lacrosse, where the ridiculous sudden-death resolution is simply dumb.  In a sport where 20 scores is the norm and half the shots on goal go in, it's absurd to decide it on the first OT goal.  Play eight or ten minutes, and most goals wins.

I love sudden death OT in lax. I see where you are coming from - and I'd think sudden death in basketball would be stupid for the same reason - but I can't get my mind to apply it to lacrosse.

For many years college lacrosse OT consisted of two four-minute periods, with a change of goal in between.  Cornell won the 1976 championship game by scoring the last four OT goals after Maryland scored the first.  Some of us who grew up watching lacrosse played with that very sensible OT procedure "can't get our minds" around the current crap shoot.

I'm not saying it isn't sensible or that I'd oppose a change. I started watching lax in the sudden death era and it just doesn't seem that bad to me. Hell, we won the faceoff in the final against Syracuse IIRC.

[Rita]

Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

Whatever it takes, short of shootouts, cut down on the ties.   The 5 min OT is just a bad idea.   The two teams seem to spend 5 minutes trying not to lose.  Bullshit.   They should finding a way to win.   That's the nature of sports!!

It's all about incentives. If there is incentive to sit back and be careful that's what rational teams will do.

I'm with Rita though. I have no problem with ties. What I have a problem with is artificial rules intended to force a tiebreak.  The reason shootouts are bad (IMNSHO) is that it turns a hockey game into a skills contest.  4 on 4 overtime is less bad but it turns the game into what amounts to a special teams contest.

If ties are such an issue I'd be in favor of going to 10 minute overtimes. An extra five minutes of ice time isn't going to kill anyone and then at least you're not changing the way the game is played on the ice, just playing longer.

If shootouts and 4x4 OT are good ideas ask yourself why the NHL doesn't use them in the playoffs.

Thanks Keith, I kind of thought you'd be with me on this and suspected Al would be too. ;-)

[css228]

Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

But I think the point of 10 minute overtimes is that they're the longest you can do without resurfacing first.   (IIRC; it's been a while since I've seen one now that shootouts are so common.)  I wouldn't mind a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing, but it would lead to any OT game taking significantly longer.  Of course, now that non-televised games only last 2:10...

But if they're so against ties, resurfacing the ice makes goals more likely.

[Chris '03]

But if they're so against ties, resurfacing the ice makes goals more likely.

And adds 10+ minutes to the length of the game. Non-sudden death non-tv OT games would run 2:40 probably, which I don't think anyone is keen on seeing on a regular basis.

[jtwcornell91]

But if they're so against ties, resurfacing the ice makes goals more likely.

And adds 10+ minutes to the length of the game. Non-sudden death non-tv OT games would run 2:40 probably, which I don't think anyone is keen on seeing on a regular basis.

I was thinking of one sudden-death 20-minute OT period.

[redice]

Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

But I think the point of 10 minute overtimes is that they're the longest you can do without resurfacing first.   (IIRC; it's been a while since I've seen one now that shootouts are so common.)  I wouldn't mind a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing, but it would lead to any OT game taking significantly longer.  Of course, now that non-televised games only last 2:10...

"a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing" would make a lot of sense..

For me, if we can't make any other change, stop the 5-minute overtime nonsense.    If a tie after 65 minutes is acceptable,   Then grant them the tie after 60 minutes and sent everyone home earlier.

Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's.   Both teams are playing to NOT lose.   Which is boring hockey to watch.   Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

[Robb]

Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Totally agree. There's an odd obsession with manufacturing results in North American (yup, I went there) sports. Teams can be evenly matched. I'd like to see the end of sudden death overtime as well, because it can reduce games to random bounces of the puck or ball.

Honestly though, a ten minute overtime where the ice is actually fresh probably wouldnt be a bad thing.

But I think the point of 10 minute overtimes is that they're the longest you can do without resurfacing first.   (IIRC; it's been a while since I've seen one now that shootouts are so common.)  I wouldn't mind a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing, but it would lead to any OT game taking significantly longer.  Of course, now that non-televised games only last 2:10...

"a single 20-minute OT after resurfacing" would make a lot of sense..

For me, if we can't make any other change, stop the 5-minute overtime nonsense.    If a tie after 65 minutes is acceptable,   Then grant them the tie after 60 minutes and sent everyone home earlier.

Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's.   Both teams are playing to NOT lose.   Which is boring hockey to watch.   Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

Because then teams would just revert to playing those 5 minutes of not-to-lose-hockey during the last 5 minutes of regulation.  At least with the 5 min OT, you get 60 minutes of good hockey first.

[Josh '99]

Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's.   Both teams are playing to NOT lose.   Which is boring hockey to watch.   Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

I'm curious whether the numbers actually back this up.  I arbitrarily chose one extremely small sample, the 2011-12 Cornell season (25th nationally in scoring offense, 11th in scoring defense), and found that 11 games went into OT (not counting the 2OT QF game vs. Dartmouth or the Michigan game, even though it ended 3:35 into OT) and found that 7 ended in ties.  Then I wondered whether that might be a result of the Schafer defense-first philosophy, so I looked at the 2011-12 BU season (4th nationally in scoring offense, 34th in scoring defense) and found that 8 games went into OT (not counting two 2OT playoff games vs. UNH) and only one ended in a tie.  (BU also tied the USA U18 team, but that doesn't really count.)  Two extremely small samples are still extremely small, of course, but it's enough to make me wonder whether maybe this group of people is predisposed to think teams are playing OT not to lose, and not many ties are being broken as a result, because of the specific hockey that we've watched.  

To put it another way, we're hardly unique in observing that teams are playing not to lose in OT, but maybe we feel the effects of that style more acutely because the team we watch is effective at playing not to lose?

[redice]

Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's.   Both teams are playing to NOT lose.   Which is boring hockey to watch.   Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

I'm curious whether the numbers actually back this up.  I arbitrarily chose one extremely small sample, the 2011-12 Cornell season (25th nationally in scoring offense, 11th in scoring defense), and found that 11 games went into OT (not counting the 2OT QF game vs. Dartmouth or the Michigan game, even though it ended 3:35 into OT) and found that 7 ended in ties.  Then I wondered whether that might be a result of the Schafer defense-first philosophy, so I looked at the 2011-12 BU season (4th nationally in scoring offense, 34th in scoring defense) and found that 8 games went into OT (not counting two 2OT playoff games vs. UNH) and only one ended in a tie.  (BU also tied the USA U18 team, but that doesn't really count.)  Two extremely small samples are still extremely small, of course, but it's enough to make me wonder whether maybe this group of people is predisposed to think teams are playing OT not to lose, and not many ties are being broken as a result, because of the specific hockey that we've watched.  

To put it another way, we're hardly unique in observing that teams are playing not to lose in OT, but maybe we feel the effects of that style more acutely because the team we watch is effective at playing not to lose?

Point taken.... Is that supposed to make me favor ties???  ;-)

[Al DeFlorio]

Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's.   Both teams are playing to NOT lose.   Which is boring hockey to watch.   Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

I'm curious whether the numbers actually back this up.  I arbitrarily chose one extremely small sample, the 2011-12 Cornell season (25th nationally in scoring offense, 11th in scoring defense), and found that 11 games went into OT (not counting the 2OT QF game vs. Dartmouth or the Michigan game, even though it ended 3:35 into OT) and found that 7 ended in ties.  Then I wondered whether that might be a result of the Schafer defense-first philosophy, so I looked at the 2011-12 BU season (4th nationally in scoring offense, 34th in scoring defense) and found that 8 games went into OT (not counting two 2OT playoff games vs. UNH) and only one ended in a tie.  (BU also tied the USA U18 team, but that doesn't really count.)  Two extremely small samples are still extremely small, of course, but it's enough to make me wonder whether maybe this group of people is predisposed to think teams are playing OT not to lose, and not many ties are being broken as a result, because of the specific hockey that we've watched.  

To put it another way, we're hardly unique in observing that teams are playing not to lose in OT, but maybe we feel the effects of that style more acutely because the team we watch is effective at playing not to lose?

Point taken.... Is that supposed to make me favor ties???  ;-)

Frankly, I'm not sure it matters to anyone whether you favor ties or not.  The question is:  Why should it be a problem if two teams play 65 minutes of hockey and the game ends in a deserved tie?  Why must one team have to win and the other lose?  

Football worked that way for a hundred years and everyone seemed to survive.  Now we have games decided through an arcane, contrived process (college) or a blatantly unfair process (NFL).  What's the point, other than in elimination playoffs?

[billhoward]

Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

I'm with you, Rita.  Even more so in lacrosse, where the ridiculous sudden-death resolution is simply dumb.  In a sport where 20 scores is the norm and half the shots on goal go in, it's absurd to decide it on the first OT goal.  Play eight or ten minutes, and most goals wins.

I love sudden death OT in lax. I see where you are coming from - and I'd think sudden death in basketball would be stupid for the same reason - but I can't get my mind to apply it to lacrosse.

In lacrosse, next-team-to-score-wins injects too much randomness into the outcome. In the NCAA title game in 1976, Cornell gave up the first goal in OT and scored the next four for a 16-13 win. Then there's the Syracuse game.

[billhoward]

Latest from USCHO on possible rules changes.

The NCAA wants fewer tie games but doesn't want to go to 4x4 in OT or have shootouts. So the only thing left is 10- or 20-minute OTs ... and more wear on players. If Cornell is a defense-minded team, then playing 4x4 in OT would seem like playing on an Olympic sheet and not be to our style.

What is wrong with a hard fought tie in a regular season game? I'm okay with the current 5 minute (5 v 5) sudden death OT period. I'm probably one of the few people (dinosaurs?) that don't mind ties. What is so awful about ties anyway?

Let's colorize "Knute Rockne: All American" and do a voiceover so Ronald Reagan-as-George-Gipp on his deathbed says, "Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got and tie just one for the Gipper."

[Josh '99]

Not many ties are being broken during these 5-miunute OT's.   Both teams are playing to NOT lose.   Which is boring hockey to watch.   Let's cut out the nonsense & go home!!

I'm curious whether the numbers actually back this up.  I arbitrarily chose one extremely small sample, the 2011-12 Cornell season (25th nationally in scoring offense, 11th in scoring defense), and found that 11 games went into OT (not counting the 2OT QF game vs. Dartmouth or the Michigan game, even though it ended 3:35 into OT) and found that 7 ended in ties.  Then I wondered whether that might be a result of the Schafer defense-first philosophy, so I looked at the 2011-12 BU season (4th nationally in scoring offense, 34th in scoring defense) and found that 8 games went into OT (not counting two 2OT playoff games vs. UNH) and only one ended in a tie.  (BU also tied the USA U18 team, but that doesn't really count.)  Two extremely small samples are still extremely small, of course, but it's enough to make me wonder whether maybe this group of people is predisposed to think teams are playing OT not to lose, and not many ties are being broken as a result, because of the specific hockey that we've watched.  

To put it another way, we're hardly unique in observing that teams are playing not to lose in OT, but maybe we feel the effects of that style more acutely because the team we watch is effective at playing not to lose?

Point taken.... Is that supposed to make me favor ties???  ;-)

No, I'm just saying that maybe the problem seems worse to us because of it.