Generic Off Season Thread

[Josh '99]

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."

::bang::

[Jim Hyla]

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.

Are you sure of that? I've not seen stats and I can come up with reasons why choppy ice might have more goals. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wonder if there are any stats.

[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?

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.

Are you sure of that? I've not seen stats and I can come up with reasons why choppy ice might have more goals. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wonder if there are any stats.

I thought of that, too. More random things can happen to deflect the puck past the goalie. But on the way up ice to get in position to score, a smoother ice surface favors the attacking team getting the puck moved around so it can take a shot on goal.

[billhoward]

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

They're good enough for RS games in the NHL and they might be good for college hockey, too. 4x4 opens up the ice and might put a team of big lugs ("defense oriented"?) at a disadvantage.
Sports Illustrated wrote on how players disliked the idea of shootouts to settle NHL RS games and now when an OT game goes to a shootout, they hustle around a TV to see the shootout. I've I've been snoozing through an NHL game or watching it out of the corner of my eye, I settle in for the five-minute OT knowing 4x4 gives a bit more chance for a goal, and I'm riveted by the shootout.

[Ben]

They're good enough for RS games in the NHL and they might be good for college hockey, too. 4x4 opens up the ice and might put a team of big lugs ("defense oriented"?) at a disadvantage.

The NHL overtime and shootout rules are gimmicks designed to get more highlights on SportsCenter. Play normal hockey for 60 minutes, if the scores are level, it's a tie.

[Beeeej]

Sports Illustrated wrote on how players disliked the idea of shootouts to settle NHL RS games and now when an OT game goes to a shootout, they hustle around a TV to see the shootout.

Skills competitions are interesting, and people find them fun to watch, but that doesn't mean they're a good way of settling the question of which team played better hockey.  If you announced that two hockey teams were about to settle a tie game with bare-fisted, "Fight Club"-style boxing, I'm sure you'd get a ton of viewers, but it's still an idiotic way of determining who should move up in the standings.

[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.

Are you sure of that? I've not seen stats and I can come up with reasons why choppy ice might have more goals. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wonder if there are any stats.

I don't have stats to back it up, but my intuition says that while the effects in even strength play (more difficult to make crisp passes and pucks that won't sit flat) might equally effect the offense and the defense, on the power play, i think bad ice would disproportionately affect the offense, by making goal scoring chances more difficult. I've been looking for a study on this for quite a while and can't seem to find one.

[billhoward]

Sports Illustrated wrote on how players disliked the idea of shootouts to settle NHL RS games and now when an OT game goes to a shootout, they hustle around a TV to see the shootout.

Skills competitions are interesting, and people find them fun to watch, but that doesn't mean they're a good way of settling the question of which team played better hockey.  If you announced that two hockey teams were about to settle a tie game with bare-fisted, "Fight Club"-style boxing, I'm sure you'd get a ton of viewers, but it's still an idiotic way of determining who should move up in the standings.

Sometimes reducing the argument to the absurd proves a point but it doesn't work so well here. "[Pros] Hustle around the TV to see the shootout" means this is something that draws in the players themselves. Cornell might have to change its recruiting mix. We could still have a cadre of slow, lumbering ("defense-oriented" ) players so long as four or five of them can place the puck accurately. And if we're known for goaltending, then Cornell has an advantage in shootouts.

When I see Cornell go to a 5-minute OT now, I suspecting nothing much will happen in 5 minutes to change the score.

[billhoward]

[enough quoting of quoted quotes]
There must be stats on goals scored per minute of the period. Each minute of a 20-minute period should have 5% of the goals scored. If the scoring falls off late in the period, it could be the choppy ice we believe hurts offense more than defense. It might also be tired players make mistakes later in the period but, by the same logic as the choppy ice, unless the tired offense has the precision to get into scoring position, the tired defender or choppy ice doesn't come into play affecting shots the sneak by the goalie. The first minute probably has fewer goals scored because the first 5-10 seconds starts at center ice and it takes 5-15 seconds to set up most scoring chances. The last has more goals if you count EAGs and ENGs.

[add] Actually, there is some research on scoring vs. time into the period from Journal of Qualitative Analysis in sports. It seems to say NHL goal scoring is random (wait, is "random" a word that has a really specific meaning to statistics freaks?) or evenly distributed except in the first and last minute. http://hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/Interarrival%20Times%20of%20Goals%20in%20Ice%20Hockey.pdf But I thought when I looked at the small charts about three pages in, showing goals by minute, there did seem to be a downward slope to the bars from minute 2 to minute 19. There also seemed to be more second-period goals. The author noted there are almost no power play goals in the first minute of the first period and hypothesized that you can't have a PPG until you have a penalty called. Slick deduction. The author is associated with Harvard. Is there an emoticon for invalid-on-its-face?

[Trotsky]

There's nothing wrong with ties.  There is something wrong with artificially forcing their resolution in the name of... what?  Short attention spans?  Intolerance of ambiguity?

5 minutes is a workable compromise between the only two purely "rational" solutions: no overtime at all or playing every game to resolution.  If you really can't handle ties, watch basketball.

[billhoward]

There's nothing wrong with ties.  There is something wrong with artificially forcing their resolution in the name of... what?  Short attention spans?  Intolerance of ambiguity?

5 minutes is a workable compromise between the only two purely "rational" solutions: no overtime at all or playing every game to resolution.  If you really can't handle ties, watch basketball.

There's the opposite: Hockey gets too exciting, switch allegiances to curling.

[redice]

There's nothing wrong with ties.  There is something wrong with artificially forcing their resolution in the name of... what?  Short attention spans?  Intolerance of ambiguity?

5 minutes is a workable compromise between the only two purely "rational" solutions: no overtime at all or playing every game to resolution.  If you really can't handle ties, watch basketball.

Remember now, Al has already pointed out that he's "not sure it matters to anyone whether you favor ties or not."    So, your first statement must be considered irrelevant.

But, I do like your workable compromise....Either of your suggestions would work for me.   The 5 minute OT's, leading to the inevitable tie is just a ridiculous exercise.   Just call it a tie after 60 minutes and send everyone home.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I am in the minority regarding the tie/OT/shootout debate, but it has been reported that tomorrow the NCAA will announce that college hockey programs will transition to a half shield over two years.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I am in the minority regarding the tie/OT/shootout debate, but it has been reported that tomorrow the NCAA will announce that college hockey programs will transition to a half shield over two years.

I guess that it may not be accurate.

[css228]

I am in the minority regarding the tie/OT/shootout debate, but it has been reported that tomorrow the NCAA will announce that college hockey programs will transition to a half shield over two years.

I guess that it may not be accurate.

I thought half-shields were never being considered and they were thinking about 3/4 shields