Dartmouth Game Thread

[CU2007]

Shootouts are by definition a clown show, as is overtime. I hate this anti-climactic crap.

They've managed to take what used to be the most exciting part of the game--overtime--and make it boring and annoying for those of us who know what's going on.  By the time a game gets to OT, they're only playing for 1/3 of the value of the game in the standings and 10% of the value in the NCAA's increasingly wacky bookkeeping.  I suppose for the uninitiated it may be the opposite, and those are the fans they're chasing.

Spot on. A massively deflating feeling when regulation ends tied against Dartmouth for example. Robs the excitement of OT when you know there isn't actually much at stake.

[upprdeck]

they should go back to 5-10 Min OT. its worth the same as a game pts then if you want a shootout after that, go for it, but its worth 2-0. then teams have an incentive. to not tie at all.

[Trotsky]

Just end in a tie after 60.

[Al DeFlorio]

Just end in a tie after 60.

I prefer a traditional overtime, but your suggestion beats what we now have.

[marty]

Just end in a tie after 60.

I prefer a traditional overtime, but your suggestion beats what we now have.

I remember stories repeated in the early 70's that in games which OT expired without a score that opposing coaches occasionally agreed to an additional OT.  Does anyone know if this was true in the 60's?

[Al DeFlorio]

Just end in a tie after 60.

I prefer a traditional overtime, but your suggestion beats what we now have.

I remember stories repeated in the early 70's that in games which OT expired without a score that opposing coaches occasionally agreed to an additional OT.  Does anyone know if this was true in the 60's?

Never heard of it in a non-tournament game.

[marty]

Just end in a tie after 60.

I prefer a traditional overtime, but your suggestion beats what we now have.

I remember stories repeated in the early 70's that in games which OT expired without a score that opposing coaches occasionally agreed to an additional OT.  Does anyone know if this was true in the 60's?

Never heard of it in a non-tournament game.

Thanks.  It always seemed like BS but I thought maybe it could have happened in a holiday tourney in December or January.

[Al DeFlorio]

Just end in a tie after 60.

I prefer a traditional overtime, but your suggestion beats what we now have.

I remember stories repeated in the early 70's that in games which OT expired without a score that opposing coaches occasionally agreed to an additional OT.  Does anyone know if this was true in the 60's?

Never heard of it in a non-tournament game.

Thanks.  It always seemed like BS but I thought maybe it could have happened in a holiday tourney in December or January.

Happened in the Boston Arena Christmas tournament in the 66-67 season when Cornell and BU tied 3-3 after two OTs and were named co-champions.  It was a round-robin format with four teams and played over three consecutive nights.  Cornell and BU both beat Harvard and Northeastern, then played on the third night.  Game was stopped after two OTs.  Three games in three nights plus two OTs...whew.  

Tournaments where one team had to win to advance were played until one team scored.  No bullshit.

[Jim Hyla]

Just end in a tie after 60.

I prefer a traditional overtime, but your suggestion beats what we now have.

I remember stories repeated in the early 70's that in games which OT expired without a score that opposing coaches occasionally agreed to an additional OT.  Does anyone know if this was true in the 60's?

Never heard of it in a non-tournament game.

Thanks.  It always seemed like BS but I thought maybe it could have happened in a holiday tourney in December or January.

Sort of the reverse did happen in the Boston Christmas Tournament 66-67. We played BU in the third game of the tournament. Yes 3 games. Tied in regulation and after the first 10 minute OT. Agreed to a second OT, but when that was tied the coaches, Harkness and Kelley, agreed to quit. Thus our only tie that year.

And it led to the next game vs Yale, our only loss.

[Give My Regards]

I don't see the point in pretending there's a difference between losing in OT and in a shootout.  They're exactly the same in the league standings (unless they affect tiebreakers, which the ECAC has still not given a straight answer about AFAIK)

ECAC Tie-Breaking Procedures from the website.

Regarding shootout results, the second tiebreaker, league wins, counts only regulation and overtime wins, not shootouts.

Shootout results do matter in the first, third, and fourth tiebreakers, which now read "Comparison of points attained" head-to-head, against top four, and against top eight.  Pre-2020, the tiebreakers referred to "Record."  So "points attained" would include those that came by shootout.