PDA

View Full Version : Most D-1 Coaches opposed to 4 on 4 OT rule change.



Pages : [1] 2 3

LTsatch
07-08-2016, 08:54 AM
According to this article, Men's D-1 coaches were almost universally opposed to the proposed changes. Although the article is Connecticut centric, some very good points were made.

State college hockey coaches oppose new overtime proposal
By Chip Malafronte, New Haven Register
POSTED: 07/06/16, 9:35 PM EDT | UPDATED: 7 HRS AGO 0 COMMENTS
NEW HAVEN >> When the NCAA ice hockey rules committee last month recommended that overtime games during the regular season be played with four skaters to each side, it went against the overwhelming opinion of its coaching body.

At the annual convention in April, the 60 Division I hockey coaches were nearly unanimous in voting against a proposal to change the current regular season overtime format: 5-on-5 for five minutes.

The rules committee ignored that vote and moved forward with its proposal anyway. It’s now up to the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which could make the change official on July 20. If passed, the new rule would be implemented for the coming season.

Coaches may lobby against the proposal for the next two weeks in hopes of persuading a veto from the panel. Three of the state’s four Division I men’s coaches — Yale’s Keith Allain, Quinnipiac’s Rand Pecknold and UConn’s Mike Cavanaugh — said this week they believe 4-on-4 overtime sessions are a mistake.

Sacred Heart’s C.J. Marottolo is one of the few coaches in the country who favors a switch.

Allain believes it’s an unnecessary change and is troubled that the rules committee ignored the consensus opinion to pass a rule coaches have been opposed to for several years.

“I think it’s outrageous,” Allain said. “They’ve been trying to jam this down our throat for the last four or five years. I don’t know who has this agenda. People in college hockey are fine with the way it’s being played right now. There are some people on the committee who decided they know what’s best for the rest of us and kind of ran this through. It’s really disappointing.”

Michigan State coach Tom Anastos, chairman of the rules committee, released a statement last month explaining reasons for the proposition.

“It is clear that goal scoring is continuing to trend down,” Anastos said. “After a thorough discussion of the overtime process, and seeing the success experienced by the National Hockey League and others using four-on-four, we believe this change will be a positive step for NCAA hockey.”

There are inconsistencies in Anastos’ reasoning. The new rule would only affect scoring overtime games, but 76 percent of regular season games played in 2015-16 were decided in regulation.

The numbers also show scoring has remained relatively unchanged over the past 10 years. Mike McMahon, writing for College Hockey News, reported Division I scoring hasn’t dipped significantly. Teams averaged 2.92 goals-per game in 2005-06 and 2.94 in 2010-11. Over the past five seasons, according to McMahon, that average has fluctuated between 2.71 and 2.80. There were slightly more goals scored in 2015-16 than the previous season.

More importantly, the proposed change still doesn’t get college hockey in line with the NHL, which no longer accepts ties and uses 3-on-3 for five minutes followed by shootouts in every regular season overtime game. College games, under the new rule, can still end in a tie.

College hockey differs from the NHL in several other areas, most notably that its 34-game regular season is roughly 60 percent shorter. College hockey also relies on an algorithm, not league standings, to determine its playoff field. It would tweak the system so that overtime wins won’t carry as much value while a team that loses in OT gets partial credit. One loss in a vastly shorter season could have far greater impact on a college team than an NHL team.

“Right now, if you lose in OT it’s a loss, if you win in OT it’s a win,” Allain said. “Because they realize this is a gimmick, if you lose in overtime you get 25 percent of a win. If win in OT you get 75 percent of a win. They know it’s not hockey. From a competitive standpoint, it doesn’t make sense to award points in the standings toward a national championship berth based on a gimmick.”

Cavanaugh believes there should be consistency between overtime rules in the regular season and the postseason.

“I think the five-on-five overtime is a skill you have to learn to play; it’s different than five-on-five in regulation in that one turnover can cost you a game,” Cavanaugh said. “If you’re going to go a long way in the national tournament, your team has to be comfortable playing an overtime game. If we do away with the 5-on-5 overtime, the first time any of us will be playing it is in the national tournament. That’s something I really don’t like.”

Alterations to the overtime format have been discussed by the coaches in the past, though any perceived proliferation of ties hasn’t been viewed as problematic enough to enact change.

Last season, 35 percent of Quinnipiac’s games went to overtime (12-of-34), well above the national average of 24 percent. The Bobcats won four of those games, lost one and tied seven. Pecknold isn’t opposed to a change of overtime format, but believes there’s a better solution than the 4-on-4 proposal.

“I think the NCAA should make the overtime longer,” Pecknold said. “Extend it to 10 minutes or at least eight minutes. With the new rule of having the teams with the long change, similar to the second period, I think you would get more goals and avoid ties. I feel strongly that would be a better option that what we currently use or 4-on-4.”

Allain worries that the rules committee is angling to eventually mirror the NHL’s current 3-on-3 overtime format.

“That’s probably their end game,” Allain said. “To me it’s like these people don’t like the game of hockey, so they’re trying to recreate it. After 60, 65 minutes of a hard-fought game, a tie sometimes is the right result. They believe there are too many ties in college hockey. Well, says who? They say people complain scoring’s down. Says who? I like to score goals but sometimes a 1-0 game is just as exciting as a 6-5 game. Anyone that understands our sport knows that.”

joecct
07-08-2016, 09:08 AM
So the B1G is trying to ram another "initiative" down the rest of college hockey's throats???

Bonin21
07-08-2016, 09:35 AM
Everyone whines about the Big Ten for the sake of whining. For fans of Big Ten hockey 4 on 4 plus shootout is a big improvement over 5 on 5 plus shootout. That is what's being discussed here.

I've said it a million times, but in the end it's the shootout that's stupid. If the Big Ten got rid of the shootout and stuck with 5 on 5, I think we'd all be cool with it.

FlagDUDE08
07-08-2016, 12:32 PM
Isn't IIHF on 4v4 OT now? And what do they have to do with the Big Roll-a-D20?

SJHovey
07-08-2016, 01:00 PM
The only purpose of overtime is, and has to be, to generate a winning team in the game. Otherwise the concept of overtime is stupid in and of itself. We played sixty minutes and the teams are tied. Let's just play more.

If you are not going to use the overtime to enhance the likelihood of producing a winner, don't play overtime at all. Just quit after 60 minutes.

So, I begin with the belief that what we are trying to accomplish with overtime is change the circumstances of the game enough that we increase the chances we actually have a winner. The first way we do that is play an additional five minutes. The second way we do that is make it sudden death. Sudden death goal scoring is different than what we have for the regulation time play, so why aren't the coaches whining about that?

If we don't believe the extra five minutes of play and the sudden death modifications are causing a big enough decrease in tie games, then it only make sense to try a different modification to the regulation game time rules, i.e. a different number of players.

FlagDUDE08
07-08-2016, 01:03 PM
The only purpose of overtime is, and has to be, to generate a winning team in the game. Otherwise the concept of overtime is stupid in and of itself. We played sixty minutes and the teams are tied. Let's just play more.

If you are not going to use the overtime to enhance the likelihood of producing a winner, don't play overtime at all. Just quit after 60 minutes.

So, I begin with the belief that what we are trying to accomplish with overtime is change the circumstances of the game enough that we increase the chances we actually have a winner. The first way we do that is play an additional five minutes. The second way we do that is make it sudden death. Sudden death goal scoring is different than what we have for the regulation time play, so why aren't the coaches whining about that?

If we don't believe the extra five minutes of play and the sudden death modifications are causing a big enough decrease in tie games, then it only make sense to try a different modification to the regulation game time rules, i.e. a different number of players.

Sounds like a plan to me. Heck, I'm find with just 90 minutes in soccer. Why not apply the same here? There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser. Binary mindset is just plain aggravating.

Patman
07-08-2016, 02:10 PM
Sounds like a plan to me. Heck, I'm find with just 90 minutes in soccer. Why not apply the same here? There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser. Binary mindset is just plain aggravating.

I'm for trying a bit to break the tie... What I don't want to see is a gimmick to do it

FadeToBlack&Gold
07-08-2016, 02:34 PM
Since when is 4x4 a "gimmick"? The team sport of hockey is still being played.

Now the shootout, that absolutely is a gimmick.

J.D.
07-08-2016, 06:17 PM
Since when is 4x4 a "gimmick"? The team sport of hockey is still being played.

Now the shootout, that absolutely is a gimmick.

Ya, i really don't get the outrage from coaches on playing 4 on 4 OT in reg season at least

J.D.
07-08-2016, 06:21 PM
Use nhl structure for points and count an OT loss slightly different than regulation loss in pwr calculations

davyd83
07-08-2016, 06:31 PM
Use nhl structure for points and count an OT loss slightly different than regulation loss in pwr calculations

I like the 3 point system. Tied at end of regulation, each team gets a point & the OT/SO winner gets and additional point. The NHL system in which 2 points are awarded in some games while 3 points are awarded in others makes no sense. A 3 point system means all games are weighted equally.

As for most coaches objecting, it makes no sense why the rules committee would go against its membership. It's just a few elitists trying to force stuff down everyone's throat. Anastos is very good at this crap.

J.D.
07-08-2016, 06:38 PM
That system works for me. And i understand not going against what coaches want, i just don't see why so many would be up in arms over 4 on 4 overtime. Personally i don't care that much either way but as a fan i think 4 on 4 ot would be good and certainly not a gimmick.

Slap Shot
07-08-2016, 07:27 PM
“It is clear that goal scoring is continuing to trend down,” Anastos said. “After a thorough discussion of the overtime process, and seeing the success experienced by the National Hockey League and others using four-on-four, we believe this change will be a positive step for NCAA hockey.”

How about enforcing obstruction penalties more frequently as a means of generating more offense?

davyd83
07-08-2016, 08:31 PM
That system works for me. And i understand not going against what coaches want, i just don't see why so many would be up in arms over 4 on 4 overtime. Personally i don't care that much either way but as a fan i think 4 on 4 ot would be good and certainly not a gimmick.
If hockey was played 4x4 regularly, it wouldn't be a gimmick. When you change the rules of the game, it's a gimmick. It's no different than saying the goalie has to play without a stick for OT. What's really ridiculous is 3x3 OT. Decide the game the way you play the game. This is like baseball removing an outfielder in extra innings or making 3 balls a walk or giving the batter 4 strikes.

LTsatch
07-08-2016, 08:44 PM
I guess i will chime in since i started this. I am not a fan of the 4 on 4 OT and think it should be reserved for the pros where the "entertainment" factor is more valued by transient fans. In college hockey, you have entrenched fans watching student athletes in the middle of a school year basically relying on a standard schedule. No matter what happens, they will be out of Dodge 1/2 hour after a regulation tie. Continuity of the process throughout D-1 as well as a vote of all D-1 programs should be considered.

Bonin21
07-08-2016, 09:18 PM
If hockey was played 4x4 regularly, it wouldn't be a gimmick. When you change the rules of the game, it's a gimmick. It's no different than saying the goalie has to play without a stick for OT. What's really ridiculous is 3x3 OT. Decide the game the way you play the game. This is like baseball removing an outfielder in extra innings or making 3 balls a walk or giving the batter 4 strikes.

The shootout is more ridiculous than 3 on 3, and that is playing a part in conference standings already.

WeAreNDHockey
07-09-2016, 06:45 AM
The shootout is and always has been the worst solution to breaking ties. Coaches don't like 4X4 because it removes a little of their control. But it isn't quite the chaos on ice that 3X3 is, which they hate even more. The average college coach is even more of a control freak than a pro coach, which is why they have been so vocal in opposition to anything other than 5X5.

It was posted by one of you earlier that the purpose of an overtime is to break a tie. I like the simplicity in this statement. If we can't live with ties, we need some system to produce a winner. I think the only solution is to play until you have one, and by play I mean play real hockey. Since no one will tolerate the likely 2 or 3 games each team would play every season that goes 2, 3 or more overtime periods, that will never happen. So just live with ties.

If you REALLY want to get rid of ties, increase scoring. Fewer games went to overtime 40 years ago. Far fewer. Why? Because the more scoring in a game, the less chance you will play 60 minutes and stay tied. But nothing tried in hockey in the last generation has stopped the decrease in goals for any sustained amount of time. The only thing that hasn't been tried that doesn't alter the fundamentals of the game (like playing entire games 4X4 or enlarging the net) is to make the goalie gear smaller. If they made the gear resemble what was worn in the 1970s or 80s, scoring would increase and the increase would likely be sustained. I don't know why the world of hockey can not see this.

joecct
07-09-2016, 08:18 AM
Are players taught to score goals or prevent goals? It seems to me that players at all levels are taught the latter.

Split-N
07-09-2016, 09:26 AM
...Decide the game the way you play the game...

+1. And play an additional five or ten minutes if you need to (except playoffs, where you obviously play until someone wins).

What I don't understand if why some people can't get it through their heads that, on a given night, one team simply isn't better than its opponent despite 60+ minutes of blood, sweat, and tears. When that happens, the only fair outcome is a tie, and a standings point for each team.

giwan
07-09-2016, 11:34 AM
If you REALLY want to get rid of ties, increase scoring. Fewer games went to overtime 40 years ago. Far fewer. Why? Because the more scoring in a game, the less chance you will play 60 minutes and stay tied. But nothing tried in hockey in the last generation has stopped the decrease in goals for any sustained amount of time. The only thing that hasn't been tried that doesn't alter the fundamentals of the game (like playing entire games 4X4 or enlarging the net) is to make the goalie gear smaller. If they made the gear resemble what was worn in the 1970s or 80s, scoring would increase and the increase would likely be sustained. I don't know why the world of hockey can not see this.

Studies show a goalie needs roughly 1500 - 2000 game exposures for an injury. Most of those injuries are more related to body contact vs puck contact. Though the injury surveillance system is not as specific as needed for goalies it would seem smaller leg pads, blocker and glove would be the ticket to an increase in scoring, yet keep the injury rate the same. Of course this could be seen as logical doesn't mean it is and who knows what the hockey powers that be think. Example increase scoring because you play 3x3, 4x4 etc during OT. HA