PDA

View Full Version : Those %&# @*%$ Shoot Outs!



Pages : [1] 2 3

pokechecker
02-25-2019, 03:04 PM
Does anybody actually like these things?
Before you answer, maybe we should look at the affect they can, and do, have on standings:
Under the traditional way, Bemidji (10-12-2)& UMD (9-11-4) would be tied for 4th place. With SO, UMD finishes 3 points ahead. UMD could have lost another game and still finished tied with Bemidji. IOW, they could have been 8-12-4 which is clearly worse than 10-12-2.

If WI had won both their shootouts, they would have tied MN for the WCHA crown. Really??? An 18-4-2 team ties with a 19-4-1 team????


In the ECAC, both Colgate and Princeton could have finished ahead of Clarkson by 2 points, but is 15-4-3 any better than 16-5-1??

Anybody know whose dumb idea it was to have shootouts in the WCHA??

Puckdrop14
02-25-2019, 04:46 PM
I despise shootouts. Prefer a game ending in a tie as bad as that is. Would prefer 5 minutes of 4 on 4 or even 3 on 3 hockey instead of a shootout.

ARM
02-25-2019, 05:32 PM
Would prefer 5 minutes of 4 on 4 or even 3 on 3 hockey instead of a shootout.The only good thing about the shootouts is that they are ignored by the national rankings (well that, and at least they don't make a two-point game worth three points like the NHL does). I'd be opposed to any 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 OT that was used to rank teams nationally. I'm fine with just leaving it tied if that's the case after 65 minutes.

pokechecker
02-25-2019, 07:48 PM
Maybe Mark Johnson should have had his back up goalies practice shootouts all year, kind of like in baseball with their reliever specialists, in the WCHA there would be goalies who specialize in shootouts who come in to pick up the bonus point when OT ends in a tie. A starting goalie has many more things to practice and can't devote as much time?

They might be for it in Duluth given Rooney's Olympics and her 4 OT wins, but I think it is safe to say people don't go to Ridder & Labahn to see a shootout.

TovarishchLisa
02-25-2019, 08:06 PM
I despise shootouts. Prefer a game ending in a tie as bad as that is. Would prefer 5 minutes of 4 on 4 or even 3 on 3 hockey instead of a shootout.

Yeah the thing with shootouts is they are a result of OT being way too short. 5 minutes just often isn't enough, that's why you see the 3 on 3 gimmick becoming popular.

FWIW, I don't factor shootouts into the women's hockey belt, which is why BC has it even though BU won the Beanpot (as it sees the NU-BU game as a 3-3 tie and not a shootout win)

robertearle
02-25-2019, 08:33 PM
Maybe Mark Johnson should have had his back up goalies practice shootouts all year, kind of like in baseball with their reliever specialists, in the WCHA there would be goalies who specialize in shootouts who come in to pick up the bonus point when OT ends in a tie. A starting goalie has many more things to practice and can't devote as much time?

They might be for it in Duluth given Rooney's Olympics and her 4 OT wins, but I think it is safe to say people don't go to Ridder & Labahn to see a shootout.

(Yes, I know you're being facetious...)

I know that UW ends most every practice with a "shootout" competition of some sort, because there have frequently been posts on the team's Facebook or Twitter page saying "Congrats to Maddie Rowe (or whoever) for being the winner of today's shootout", etc. I don't know the format of those events, and I don't recall if the goalies have a way of being the winner(s). But obviously, the other goalies take part.

This weekend was/were the first ties UW has been involved in this year. Same goes for Ohio State, for that matter.

EDIT: Last year, there were two shootouts for UW. Campbell stopped eight of nine shots.

Timothy A
02-25-2019, 10:42 PM
EDIT: Last year, there were two shootouts for UW. Campbell stopped eight of nine shots.

Thanks for pointing that out. After this weekend I needed to read something like that.

Overall I hate shootouts and 3 on 3 is a joke.

D2D
02-25-2019, 11:56 PM
Overall I hate shootouts and 3 on 3 is a joke.
I don't like either when it comes to determining the outcome of a game, or even which team is awarded an extra point in a league's standings. But I do confess to liking the difference in strategy that teams must deploy in 3 on 3 situations, which is largely built around maintaining possession of the puck and creating odd-man rushes, while not giving up any 2 on 1's going the other way. Fun to watch, but it's too unlike regular hockey to determine outcomes and point totals.

drewkal
02-26-2019, 02:08 AM
Maybe Mark Johnson should have had his back up goalies practice shootouts all year, kind of like in baseball with their reliever specialists, in the WCHA there would be goalies who specialize in shootouts who come in to pick up the bonus point when OT ends in a tie. A starting goalie has many more things to practice and can't devote as much time?

They might be for it in Duluth given Rooney's Olympics and her 4 OT wins, but I think it is safe to say people don't go to Ridder & Labahn to see a shootout.

I hate shootouts! A Gold Medal via a shootout was great, not gonna' give it back, but it just wasn't right. In tournament play, including the Olympics, play on in OT until someone wins. Shootouts seem as manufactured as the "We Will Rock You"s on the speakers, and the spot lights, and sometimes smoke, at the home team intros at certain away games.

Still Eeyore
02-26-2019, 05:01 AM
I hate shootouts as much as anyone. However, I wouldn't assume that the population on these boards as representative of fans in general. In particular, shootouts are aimed at more marginal fans. The people that decide on whether to use them are likely of the opinion, and I think that they're correct, that we are going to keep coming to the games no matter how tie games are handled, and so they aren't going to give a lot of weight to how we feel about them. The only two constituencies that matter are the casual fans who do care and generally dislike ties, and the coaches.

The loud music over the PA system that we can't ever find anyone who likes is pretty much the same story.

Lindsay
02-26-2019, 06:38 AM
The loud music over the PA system that we can't ever find anyone who likes is pretty much the same story.

This is something that 100% needs to go at all rinks. Music is fine. The level of the noise matters, though. Its a problem at NHL rinks, NW rinks, college rinks.... please, a return to sanity. Especially at rinks that are for families with little kids.

ZedLeppelin
02-26-2019, 08:01 AM
I don't like the idea of anything other than 5-on-5 for OT. Why change the whole dynamic for these two evenly-matched teams? They came to play 5-on-5 hockey until someone finds a way to win. Let them keep playing 5-on-5 hockey until someone does that. If it ends in a tie, so what? Nobody likes a tie, but that's how it goes sometimes. Or let them keep playing OT until there's a winner...whatever...but do it 5-on-5 like the rest of the game was played.

Last year, Penn State went to OT 15 times (15 times!) and ended up with 11 ties out of that. The players sure don't like it and the coaches don't like it, but you earn what you earn. Let them finish the game 5-on-5, like they played for the first 60 minutes. What's the next idea, switching to 2-on-2 broomball for OT?

Leather helmet
02-26-2019, 09:13 AM
I like 3v3 hockey. There, I said it. Before you cast me out of your fraternity, hear me out.

1. It involves real hockey players using real hockey skills to determine the outcome. I would object to, say, bringing fans out of the stands and putting them into sumo costumes to play boot soccer for the win.
2. It requires a change in strategy. 3v3 is not the same as 5v5 with fewer players. But that is good! It rewards teams that are adaptable, and it rewards individual skills to use the extra space.
3. It is exciting. All that extra space leads to lots of chances.
4. It's OK that you disagree with me. I'm not trying to change your opinion, just giving you mine.

OK, you can cast me out now.

FiveHoleFrenzy
02-26-2019, 10:00 AM
3v3 is not the same as 5v5 with fewer players.

Wait, I didn't think deciding ties required math problem solving...Especially math I don't understand. ;)

Russell Jaslow
02-26-2019, 10:16 AM
I like 3v3 hockey. There, I said it. Before you cast me out of your fraternity, hear me out.

1. It involves real hockey players using real hockey skills to determine the outcome. I would object to, say, bringing fans out of the stands and putting them into sumo costumes to play boot soccer for the win.
2. It requires a change in strategy. 3v3 is not the same as 5v5 with fewer players. But that is good! It rewards teams that are adaptable, and it rewards individual skills to use the extra space.
3. It is exciting. All that extra space leads to lots of chances.
4. It's OK that you disagree with me. I'm not trying to change your opinion, just giving you mine.

OK, you can cast me out now.

I agree with you. The first time I saw it in person in an NHL game, I was absolutely wowed.

I'll meet you in the corner of the bar near the bathrooms where nobody else will sit...

TonyTheTiger20
02-26-2019, 12:19 PM
I also like 3 on 3. \_(ツ)_/

No one is going to say they like 3 on 3 better than unlimited 5 on 5, but I would fully support something like 10 minutes of 3 on 3 in the regular season.

ARM
02-26-2019, 12:48 PM
I like 3v3 hockey.


I agree with you.


I also like 3 on 3.I welcome your opinions. Please note that just because two rational human beings (+ Grant) are in favor of something, that doesn't mean it is a good thing.

IMO, the 3-on-3 OT, like shootouts, can be entertaining to watch. However, that doesn't mean that they are much better than coin flips in terms of measurements for whether Team A or Team B is more deserving of advancing. At no point while watching the three 3-OT NCAA games that I've seen in person did I think, "This would be much better played 3-on-3."

As for the regular season, is a tie so bad? Doesn't the fact that a decision couldn't be reached in 65 minutes tell us just as much as artificially forcing a decision to be made does?

TonyTheTiger20
02-26-2019, 12:54 PM
No one is going to say they like 3 on 3 better than unlimited 5 on 5.
At no point while watching the three 3-OT NCAA games that I've seen in person did I think, "This would be much better played 3-on-3."I'm not sure how many times that poor straw man has to be taken down, ARM.

Say it with me, buddy:

No one is going to say they like 3 on 3 better than unlimited 5 on 5.

No one is going to say they like 3 on 3 better than unlimited 5 on 5.

No one is going to say they like 3 on 3 better than unlimited 5 on 5.

No one is going to say they like 3 on 3 better than unlimited 5 on 5.

No one is going to say they like 3 on 3 better than unlimited 5 on 5.

As for this --

As for the regular season, is a tie so bad? Doesn't the fact that a decision couldn't be reached in 65 minutes tell us just as much as artificially forcing a decision to be made does?
Ties suck. That's the extent of my argument lol. I realize it's a weak argument. But that's where I'm at.

Timothy A
02-26-2019, 01:38 PM
I don't like the idea of anything other than 5-on-5 for OT. Why change the whole dynamic for these two evenly-matched teams? They came to play 5-on-5 hockey until someone finds a way to win. Let them keep playing 5-on-5 hockey until someone does that. If it ends in a tie, so what? Nobody likes a tie, but that's how it goes sometimes. Or let them keep playing OT until there's a winner...whatever...but do it 5-on-5 like the rest of the game was played.

Last year, Penn State went to OT 15 times (15 times!) and ended up with 11 ties out of that. The players sure don't like it and the coaches don't like it, but you earn what you earn. Let them finish the game 5-on-5, like they played for the first 60 minutes. What's the next idea, switching to 2-on-2 broomball for OT?

You could not be more correct.

I will admit I have not watched much 3 on 3 (I don't watch much NHL). Back in the day when coincidental penalties made it 4 on 4 or even 3 on 3, that was the bomb. To see a 4 on 3 was awesome. Fast forward to this year. I saw the UW men play 3 on 3 for the first time. It was AWFUL. Both teams were too afraid to screw up, connected passes were few and far between, it was pathetic. Last night I happened to see the Kings and the Bolts 3 on 3. It wasn't bad, but that's not pure hockey to me, just 6 guys playing man to man D.

I also watched the shootout, the Bolts scored twice on wrist shots....hopefully the UW women saw that shootout.

ARM
02-26-2019, 02:04 PM
I'm not sure how many times that poor straw man has to be taken down, ARM.I saw your disclaimer the first time (although I don't want you to get carried away and assume that I actually read all of your posts to the end.) While reading everyone else's love fest for 3-on-3, I wanted to offer my thoughts. Disregard that sentence if you wish. As for your disclaimer, you know that some TV genius is going to push for 3-on-3 OT in the playoffs at some point, so that they can more quickly skip to 12 continuous hours of Sports Center.


Ties suck.Sure. The players should be held accountable for them. You don't want a tie? Well, you've got 65 minutes to go for a win. Do that within those 65 minutes; don't stall waiting for some gimmick that the video-game generation dreamed up. And if you wind up with 15 or some gawdawful number of ties on your record, then we probably don't need you in the NCAA Tournament. :)