Rules Changes?

Started by Jim Hyla, June 10, 2019, 07:39:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Jim Hyla

"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005

Jim Hyla

"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005

Trotsky

Jesus fuck.  Just have a wet t-shirt contest.  My money's on Mike.

Dafatone

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.

Trotsky

Damn kids with your flagpole sitting and jazz.

jtwcornell91

Quote from: Dafatone
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.

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.

Scersk '97

Quote from: jtwcornell91
Quote from: Dafatone
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.

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.

Trotsky

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.

Beeeej

Quote from: Scersk '97
Quote from: jtwcornell91
Quote from: Dafatone
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.

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.
Beeeej, Esq.

"Cornell isn't an organization.  It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
   - Steve Worona

The Rancor

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?)

Scersk '97

Quote from: Beeeej
Quote 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.

KenP

Quote from: Scersk '97
Quote from: Beeeej
Quote 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?

scoop85

Quote from: KenP
Quote from: Scersk '97
Quote from: Beeeej
Quote 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.

Trotsky

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

Scersk '97

Quote from: KenP
Quote from: Scersk '97
Quote from: Beeeej
Quote 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.