NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

[COHockey]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

If shootouts are meant to get fans into the game, then let me propose putting the shootout before each game. Have a shootout before each and every game. Since the shootout is so popular, it will put butts in the seats before face off. Furthermore, in OT, you know the team that lost the shootout will be playing their hearts out.

Personally I hate the shootout, and I have already indicated that I will leave. I did that in every NHL game I had been to that ended in a tie.

[ericredaxe]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

All the talk about new fans not accepting ties / trying to appeal to fans who don't like the game / get fans to the game etc etc is reading too much into it. I do think that a game ending in a tie can be an enjoyable / exciting game, but seeing a shootout is just a little bit more icing on the otherwise good cake.

I think it's simple... shootouts are fun to watch. Maybe you see a great forward make a nifty move and top shelf a sweet goal, or maybe you get to see a goalie make an unbelievable sprawling save. I would think most people can agree on that regardless of how you feel about ties etc.

So... if you can add a even a little bit more fun and excitement to an otherwise good product why not do it?

[camilo]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

Maybe we don't understand the shootout support because we're just getting old. Sure, the shootout hasn't been around that long compared to some of our ages, but if you're a kid just entering college, the NHL has been using a shootout for half your life, the USHL for longer than that. My daughter grew up watching USHL and NHL games, and saw her first college tie last year during her freshman year. I thought it was a great game, but as we were leaving, she said, "Well, that was unsatisfying." I still don't like it, but the longer it stays around at other levels, the more acceptance there will be. I think it's an inevitability in the college game within 10 years.

It could be age, I guess. But I'm pushing 60. I've actually played the sport since I was about 8, through adult leagues into my 40s. I have been a fan for all that time, high school, college and pro. I watch about 10-15 live div. I games a year, a few on TV and a few pro games on TV each year. If I'm in a pro hockey city, I take every opportunity to go to a game. If I'm in another Div I hockey town, I take every opportunity to watch the game, regardless of if my team is in it.

I kind of like the shootout for college games. It's fun to watch. Sure it's nothing but a skills competition, but I like watching what the boys can do. I think it's totally legitimate and fun in the way they do it in college hockey - the "3 - 2 - 1" points system. Not for a winner take all deal though.

In my opinion, it does in fact provide some meaningful separation between the teams. Mostly in the goaltender area - a hot goalie can win the shootout, just like a hot goalie can steal a game itself or at least keep a lesser team in striking distance.

Of course, I think the best way to settle games in an important context (playoffs, for instance) is to play overtimes until a team scores. But that's not practical for a regular season game.

And as far as motivation goes - I simply don't buy the idea that it de-motivates players or their coaches to win in regulation or OT. That's just silly. I certainly have never, ever seen any evidence in games I've watched.

Look at the standings in any of the Div I leagues to see how extremely tight they are in general. A point or two separates home ice in the playoffs from traveling. A tiny handful of points, just a few, can mean the difference between getting a first round bye if that's a factor. Certainly just a very few points can make the difference between a favorable seed in the tourney vs. an unfavorable one. The good teams - good motivated players and good coaches - fight as hard as they can for every single point, and that means 3 vs. 2 vs. 1.

I just don't buy the idea that a team won't work as hard as they can to get 3 points for a clear victory vs. the chance getting at most 2 for a tie/shoot out win, or worse yet, coming home with just one for a tie and shoot out loss. It's as ridiculous as thinking that a team doesn't want to win two points for a victory and is willing to settle for a single point tie.

The real interesting question is - how the 3 game points system seeds teams in a league vs. what their standings would have been if they quit after the tie and just awarded 2 points per game.

Anyway, just an old guy's view in favor of shootouts. They're fun, do no harm and actually provide a meaningful difference between the two teams that have played to a tie after 65 minutes.

[Pink Pony]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

Ties Are like kissing your sister.

[LtPowers]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

A tiny handful of points, just a few, can mean the difference between getting a first round bye if that's a factor.

Yes, so why put those points in the hands of a one-on-one skills competition, instead of the team-oriented game we all love to watch?


Powers &8^]

[Patman]

Yes, so why put those points in the hands of a one-on-one skills competition, instead of the team-oriented game we all love to watch?


Powers &8^]

I'd honestly prefer going 3v3 before going to the shoot out

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

Ties Are like kissing your sister.

That's not true. Ties are not very popular in the south.

Seriously though, this is usually a talking point for people who would rather lose than tie. Regardless of whether that's what you're saying here, I'll go on record saying that people who prefer to lose than tie are complete morons.

[camilo]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

Yes, so why put those points in the hands of a one-on-one skills competition, instead of the team-oriented game we all love to watch?


Powers &8^]

Like I said in the post you are referring to - my opinion is that they do provide a way to legitimately separate two otherwise tied teams. That plus the fact that they're fun to watch, makes them a reasonable feature of a regular season game. I don't disagree with your statement about the team-oriented game, but again, as I said in that same post, going beyond one overtime is not reasonable for a regular season game. If you don't think people like the shootout (which I disagree with), how do you think they'd like staying there for lengthy OT's for a regular season game. I believe far fewer people would like that than like the shootouts (and I believe most fans - yes, "real", long term fans like me - like shootouts for regular season games)

[Osorojo]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

I'm with camilo. I attended college hockey games before the ECAC was founded and my take is that fans attend games to see who wins, and players compete to see who wins. Not who ties.

[scsutommyboy]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

I'm with camilo. I attended college hockey games before the ECAC was founded and my take is that fans attend games to see who wins, and players compete to see who wins. Not who ties.

College kids play twice a week. Bring back the 15 minute OT like they use to have and 90%+ of the ties will go away.

[Tipsy McStagger]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

I think it's simple... shootouts are fun to watch. Maybe you see a great forward make a nifty move and top shelf a sweet goal, or maybe you get to see a goalie make an unbelievable sprawling save. I would think most people can agree on that regardless of how you feel about ties etc.

They are fun to watch....according to you. The only reason I have ever watched a shootout in the NHL was because it had an effect on my favorite team's place in the standings. I am not impressed by nifty moves performed against no defense. Just like I wouldn't be impressed by NBA players making countless 3's or Free throws if the NBA decided that overtime was just too much to bother with and decided to do what hockey seems to be doing more and more. Using a skills competition to decide the result of a game.

[ericredaxe]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

They are fun to watch....according to you. The only reason I have ever watched a shootout in the NHL was because it had an effect on my favorite team's place in the standings. I am not impressed by nifty moves performed against no defense. Just like I wouldn't be impressed by NBA players making countless 3's or Free throws if the NBA decided that overtime was just too much to bother with and decided to do what hockey seems to be doing more and more. Using a skills competition to decide the result of a game.

Thats your opinion and its fine. I'd guess more people find them enjoyable / exciting to watch.... certainly most people I know think the NHL shootout is fun and based on what I see at the arenas and the fans staying to watch, I think it is safe to say that is the majority opinion.

Free throws in basketball is not a good comparison to the shooter vs goalie situation in a hockey shootout.

[4four4]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

In all my research the same NHL playoff teams make the playoffs regardless winning or losing a shoot out.

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

I'm with camilo. I attended college hockey games before the ECAC was founded and my take is that fans attend games to see who wins, and players compete to see who wins. Not who ties.

They also don't want to see their team lose. Should we get rid of losses while we're at it?

[WiscDC]

Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games

They also don't want to see their team lose. Should we get rid of losses while we're at it?

I couldn't agree more. I'm not as opposed to shootouts as many others are, especially in the NCAA context ("tie and shootout win/loss" is different from "regulation or overtime win/loss"), and I sure as heck won't walk out before the shootout is over. What bugs me is the way fans tend to throw around those idealistic statements about winning. "We want to see wins!" If neither team can best the other, does that mean the whole game is ruined? No, because both teams were competing to win, and fans got to see it.