3x3 OT proven silly

[abmarks]

AHCA.

There was lots of debate on this board about 3x3 OT and how little OT wins were valued. The article Marty found has has some actual quantitative analysis and is the  best argument I've seen for playing traditional overtime and not this silly stuff.

TLDR: ot wins and losses are irrelevant with current rules and might as well have just been ties.



Here's the portion about overtime:

Overtime a discussion point
Coaches also discussed the current overtime procedure, which began two seasons ago.

During the regular season, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes straight into a five-minute, three-on-three overtime.

If someone scores in the three-on-three, the game goes down as a win or a loss on their record, but instead of a full value win, it's counted as 55 percent for the winning team and 45 percent for the losing team in the Pairwise Rankings formula. Therefore, it's valued far closer to a tie than a win.

There were 129 college hockey games decided in overtime prior to the NCAA tournament selection show this season. Using CHN's Pairwise Customizer tool , the Herald changed all 129 overtime results to ties to see how much things would have changed if overtime wasn't a thing.

The answer: Almost nothing.

If there was no such thing as overtime, and every game that was tied after 60 minutes went into the books that way, the exact same 16 teams would have been in the NCAA tournament.

The No. 1 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 2 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 3 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 4 seeds would have been the exact same four teams.

There would have been just two differences. Western Michigan and Denver would have flip-flopped spots at No. 3 and 4 overall, while St. Cloud State and Notre Dame would have flipped at Nos. 9 and 10. The committee ended up flipping the Huskies and Irish, anyway, to avoid a UND-St. Cloud State first-round matchup.

When this overtime format was instituted, coaches were concerned that overtime wins and losses would play an outsized role, but clearly, they're having very little impact on the

Pairwise Rankings and who goes to the NCAA tournament

[marty]

AHCA.

There was lots of debate on this board about 3x3 OT and how little OT wins were valued. The article Marty found has has some actual quantitative analysis and is the  best argument I've seen for playing traditional overtime and not this silly stuff.

TLDR: ot wins and losses are irrelevant with current rules and might as well have just been ties.



Here's the portion about overtime:

Overtime a discussion point
Coaches also discussed the current overtime procedure, which began two seasons ago.

During the regular season, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes straight into a five-minute, three-on-three overtime.

If someone scores in the three-on-three, the game goes down as a win or a loss on their record, but instead of a full value win, it's counted as 55 percent for the winning team and 45 percent for the losing team in the Pairwise Rankings formula. Therefore, it's valued far closer to a tie than a win.

There were 129 college hockey games decided in overtime prior to the NCAA tournament selection show this season. Using CHN's Pairwise Customizer tool , the Herald changed all 129 overtime results to ties to see how much things would have changed if overtime wasn't a thing.

The answer: Almost nothing.

If there was no such thing as overtime, and every game that was tied after 60 minutes went into the books that way, the exact same 16 teams would have been in the NCAA tournament.

The No. 1 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 2 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 3 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 4 seeds would have been the exact same four teams.

There would have been just two differences. Western Michigan and Denver would have flip-flopped spots at No. 3 and 4 overall, while St. Cloud State and Notre Dame would have flipped at Nos. 9 and 10. The committee ended up flipping the Huskies and Irish, anyway, to avoid a UND-St. Cloud State first-round matchup.

When this overtime format was instituted, coaches were concerned that overtime wins and losses would play an outsized role, but clearly, they're having very little impact on the

Pairwise Rankings and who goes to the NCAA tournament

The article is wrong in that the current 3x3 OT neutralizes OT to the point of near meaninglessness when considering NCAA ranking. Rather than having little impact it has little impact except for teams who would have won or lost a 5x5 OT. A secondary impact is that it gives the teams points for league standings that impact the league tournament seeding.  A corollary and likely unintended consequence is that teams don't play "real" overtime until the beginning of post-season play.  There is no 5x5 sudden death until March when it matters.

An OT or shootout win feels good in the moment but skews the league ranking in one direction while having almost no effect on pairwise. Rather than "very little impact" it truly screws everything up.

[Trotsky]

An OT or shootout win feels good in the moment but skews the league ranking in one direction while having almost no effect on pairwise. Rather than "very little impact" it truly screws everything up.

Also, like the shoot out and the DH, it aesthetically and morally degrades us both as individuals and as a species.

[marty]

An OT or shootout win feels good in the moment but skews the league ranking in one direction while having almost no effect on pairwise. Rather than "very little impact" it truly screws everything up.

Also, like the shoot out and the DH, it aesthetically and morally degrades us both as individuals and as a species.

In extra innings:
"Who's on first?"

No. WTF is on second?

[jtwcornell91]

AHCA.

There was lots of debate on this board about 3x3 OT and how little OT wins were valued. The article Marty found has has some actual quantitative analysis and is the  best argument I've seen for playing traditional overtime and not this silly stuff.

TLDR: ot wins and losses are irrelevant with current rules and might as well have just been ties.



Here's the portion about overtime:

Overtime a discussion point
Coaches also discussed the current overtime procedure, which began two seasons ago.

During the regular season, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes straight into a five-minute, three-on-three overtime.

If someone scores in the three-on-three, the game goes down as a win or a loss on their record, but instead of a full value win, it's counted as 55 percent for the winning team and 45 percent for the losing team in the Pairwise Rankings formula. Therefore, it's valued far closer to a tie than a win.

There were 129 college hockey games decided in overtime prior to the NCAA tournament selection show this season. Using CHN's Pairwise Customizer tool , the Herald changed all 129 overtime results to ties to see how much things would have changed if overtime wasn't a thing.

The answer: Almost nothing.

If there was no such thing as overtime, and every game that was tied after 60 minutes went into the books that way, the exact same 16 teams would have been in the NCAA tournament.

The No. 1 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 2 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 3 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 4 seeds would have been the exact same four teams.

There would have been just two differences. Western Michigan and Denver would have flip-flopped spots at No. 3 and 4 overall, while St. Cloud State and Notre Dame would have flipped at Nos. 9 and 10. The committee ended up flipping the Huskies and Irish, anyway, to avoid a UND-St. Cloud State first-round matchup.

When this overtime format was instituted, coaches were concerned that overtime wins and losses would play an outsized role, but clearly, they're having very little impact on the

Pairwise Rankings and who goes to the NCAA tournament

The article is wrong in that the current 3x3 OT neutralizes OT to the point of near meaninglessness when considering NCAA ranking. Rather than having little impact it has little impact except for teams who would have won or lost a 5x5 OT.

So the real comparison would be to take 2019 and turn all RS OT wins into ties.

[marty]

AHCA.

There was lots of debate on this board about 3x3 OT and how little OT wins were valued. The article Marty found has has some actual quantitative analysis and is the  best argument I've seen for playing traditional overtime and not this silly stuff.

TLDR: ot wins and losses are irrelevant with current rules and might as well have just been ties.



Here's the portion about overtime:

Overtime a discussion point
Coaches also discussed the current overtime procedure, which began two seasons ago.

During the regular season, if a game is tied after regulation, it goes straight into a five-minute, three-on-three overtime.

If someone scores in the three-on-three, the game goes down as a win or a loss on their record, but instead of a full value win, it's counted as 55 percent for the winning team and 45 percent for the losing team in the Pairwise Rankings formula. Therefore, it's valued far closer to a tie than a win.

There were 129 college hockey games decided in overtime prior to the NCAA tournament selection show this season. Using CHN's Pairwise Customizer tool , the Herald changed all 129 overtime results to ties to see how much things would have changed if overtime wasn't a thing.

The answer: Almost nothing.

If there was no such thing as overtime, and every game that was tied after 60 minutes went into the books that way, the exact same 16 teams would have been in the NCAA tournament.

The No. 1 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 2 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 3 seeds would have been the exact same four teams. The No. 4 seeds would have been the exact same four teams.

There would have been just two differences. Western Michigan and Denver would have flip-flopped spots at No. 3 and 4 overall, while St. Cloud State and Notre Dame would have flipped at Nos. 9 and 10. The committee ended up flipping the Huskies and Irish, anyway, to avoid a UND-St. Cloud State first-round matchup.

When this overtime format was instituted, coaches were concerned that overtime wins and losses would play an outsized role, but clearly, they're having very little impact on the

Pairwise Rankings and who goes to the NCAA tournament

The article is wrong in that the current 3x3 OT neutralizes OT to the point of near meaninglessness when considering NCAA ranking. Rather than having little impact it has little impact except for teams who would have won or lost a 5x5 OT.

So the real comparison would be to take 2019 and turn all RS OT wins into ties.

Yes! Thank you in advance.

[abmarks]

Looks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.

Props to Adam for the clarifying article;

The Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.

Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.

This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.

[Al DeFlorio]

Looks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.

Props to Adam for the clarifying article;

The Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.

Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.

This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.

If they had any hockey sense they'd play a ten-minute OT 6 on 6 and count a win as a win, a loss as a loss and a tie as a tie.  Simple.

[billhoward]

Looks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.

Props to Adam for the clarifying article;

The Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.

Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.

This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.

If they had any hockey sense they'd play a ten-minute OT 6 on 6 and count a win as a win, a loss as a loss and a tie as a tie.  Simple.

10 minutes with or without cutting the ice? With fresh ice, the puck flies truer, perhaps increases the odds of a goal. For the road, instead of being on the bus at 9:45 pm, it's 10:15, you get to your Friday night hotel a half-hour later and from a Harvard or Dartmouth Saturday game you get back in Ithaca just before 4 a.m. if the team doesn't overnight Saturday.

Longer term, fans – read, people younger than many of us – are more comfortable with 3-on-3 and/or shootouts to decide hockey games. Specialists matter more. So coaches recruit with an eye to who's good at penalty shots, just as lacrosse recruits for FOGOs and football recruits place-kickers.

In exchange, I want lacrosse to bring back a four- or five-minute overtime (not first-goal wins) and only after that is it sudden death.

[abmarks]

Looks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.

Props to Adam for the clarifying article;

The Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.

Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.

This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.

If they had any hockey sense they'd play a ten-minute OT 6 on 6 and count a win as a win, a loss as a loss and a tie as a tie.  Simple.

10 minutes with or without cutting the ice? With fresh ice, the puck flies truer, perhaps increases the odds of a goal. For the road, instead of being on the bus at 9:45 pm, it's 10:15, you get to your Friday night hotel a half-hour later and from a Harvard or Dartmouth Saturday game you get back in Ithaca just before 4 a.m. if the team doesn't overnight Saturday.

Longer term, fans – read, people younger than many of us – are more comfortable with 3-on-3 and/or shootouts to decide hockey games. Specialists matter more. So coaches recruit with an eye to who's good at penalty shots, just as lacrosse recruits for FOGOs and football recruits place-kickers.

In exchange, I want lacrosse to bring back a four- or five-minute overtime (not first-goal wins) and only after that is it sudden death.

Iirc in the old days they always did the ice prior to OT (I'm recalling the late 70s early 80s games at UVM, and assuming all schools did the same)

[Al DeFlorio]

Looks like I'd missed that the OT win/loss adjustment was changed for the 22-23 season.

Props to Adam for the clarifying article;

The Men's Ice Hockey Committee decided this offseason to tweak the Pairwise criteria again, making an OT win count as 2/3rds of a win and 1/3rd of a loss. Vice-versa, of course, for the losing team.

Last year, the first year with both a Pairwise and universal 3-on-3 OT, the breakdown was 55/45. At 55/45, a road OT loss could theoretically help you in the Pairwise. And a home OT win could theoretically hurt you.

This is one of the reasons the Committee changed it.

If they had any hockey sense they'd play a ten-minute OT 6 on 6 and count a win as a win, a loss as a loss and a tie as a tie.  Simple.

10 minutes with or without cutting the ice? With fresh ice, the puck flies truer, perhaps increases the odds of a goal. For the road, instead of being on the bus at 9:45 pm, it's 10:15, you get to your Friday night hotel a half-hour later and from a Harvard or Dartmouth Saturday game you get back in Ithaca just before 4 a.m. if the team doesn't overnight Saturday.

Longer term, fans – read, people younger than many of us – are more comfortable with 3-on-3 and/or shootouts to decide hockey games. Specialists matter more. So coaches recruit with an eye to who's good at penalty shots, just as lacrosse recruits for FOGOs and football recruits place-kickers.

In exchange, I want lacrosse to bring back a four- or five-minute overtime (not first-goal wins) and only after that is it sudden death.

Two four-minute overtimes with change of goal, with no first-goal-wins.  If still tied, sudden death OT.

[Trotsky]

No overtime at all.  A tie is a tie.

Fight Creeping Meatballism.

[Tcl123]

No overtime at all.  A tie is a tie.

Fight Creeping Meatballism.

I'd give a 5 minute OT. Then a tie is a tie.

The 5-1-0-0-2-1 record per se is absolutely moronic.

[upprdeck]

is soccer so much easier that they can play with no subs 30 min no sudden death OTS but college kids cant play 5 min or live with a tie results?

[Trotsky]

It has nothing to do with the players.  It's the idiocy of marketing.  We should end it with a homerun derby.