-
-
-
-
-
- College Basketball
- Scores
- Teams
-
Conferences
- Players
- Stats
- Standings
- Rankings
- Schedules
- Women's Hoops
-
-
-
-
- Soccer Front Page
-
Leagues
-
-
- Tennis Front Page
-
ATP
-
WTA
-
-
|
Commentary, news, analysis and reader-driven discussions focusing on this year's Stanley Cup playoffs.
If the opener of the Canucks-Stars series didn't seal the deal, odds are there'll be another endurance-straining game or two on this season's path to the Cup that will. And when it happens, it'll be a good thing. Skeptical? I know where you're coming from. I'd always considered myself a purist when it came to the sanctity of playoff OT, but I'm ready to turn in my membership card. I used to be wrapped up in the romance of two clubs slugging it out in hockey's version of a cage match. But it became all too apparent to me last night that it's a lot more fun to talk about a four-overtime game than to actually watch one. Strike that -- to endure one. And if you committed to all 5-1/2 hours of the Stars-Canucks death march, you know that's the proper verb. After an entertainingly fast-paced first overtime session offered up a number of quality chances, the game settled into nearly three hours of bone-numbing tedium. Rather than going all out to win, both teams contentedly engaged in systems designed to ensure they would not lose. That's entertainment? Hardly. But that's only part of the reason why the shootout, so wildly popular during the regular season, will come into play. The real driver behind the change will be, as always, television. Specifically, American network television. I understand that CBC and TSN are willing to go the distance in the playoffs. Their audiences will for the most part stay with them, and honestly they don't have anything pressing on the other side of the scheduled finish. These games are as big a draw as they get. That's not the case with NBC. When games run long, it screws up their scheduling. More important, it screws up their advertising. And since they need those deep-pocketed sponsors, that's not a tenable situation. It won't be an issue in the early rounds when the broadcasts are limited to the TV graveyard that is Saturday afternoon in the spring. But NBC is set to cover games 3-7 of the Finals in prime time, and that comes with an entirely different set of parameters. That decision already is unpopular with countless affiliates because the NHL is ratings Kryptonite across a large swath of the country. It's nothing personal, hockey fans. It just that the NHL kills the lead-in audience that all affiliates rely on to power the ratings for their late local news. So in their minds it's bad enough that the games are on in the first place. Now imagine the Finals roll around and a game goes into OT. That pushes back the local news and delays The Tonight Show. It means loyal viewers looking for their regular programming will look elsewhere. That's bad. Now imagine a marathon like last night. That would mean wiping those shows out completely, forcing expensive make-goods to their advertisers. That's a disaster. So NBC clearly would benefit from the certainty of a shootout. And as we learned earlier this week, the network just might have the juice with the league to make that kind of request. That became apparent when the NHL ignored CBC's request to schedule Saturday's Game 2 of the Ottawa-Pittsburgh series for prime time and Hockey Night In Canada. Instead, they acquiesced to NBC's desire for an afternoon time slot and a regional telecast. This despite the fact that CBC just signed an extension worth half-a-billion dollars to the league, while NBC pays nothing up front for its broadcast rights. It seems obvious the league values the potential of NBC and its American audience over the sure thing of CBC and its die-hard core of Canadian fans. So if NBC decides to put pressure on the league to provide some sort of guarantee of finality, odds are the network will at least get its day in court. If it happens, I'll be on board. I used to think it was a lousy way to determine a winner for an important game, but after several white-knuckled viewings where a gold medal or World Championship was on the line, I have to admit that those matches offered more drama and are far more memorable. And aren't those exactly the qualities that attract new fans? If I had a say in the implementation of a playoff shootout system, I'd work off the IIHF model. Start with a full 20-minute overtime period and give the teams a chance to settle their differences old school. If things were still knotted up, I'd go to a best-of-five shootout. The first five shooters would need to be unique, but if those five were unable to settle matters, players could be called upon to shoot again as often as necessary. This format puts the pressure on the high-profile players and ups the buzz factor for the fans. After all, would you rather watch Sidney Crosby shoot three times, or have his second and third opportunities used by Nils Ekman and Jarkko Ruutu? NBC may take its lumps with overtime this year. But change is coming. In the meantime, expect the NHL to take less drastic measures to prevent similar marathons this spring. It was obvious that neither Bill McCreary nor Eric Furlatt wanted to make a call that could affect the outcome of the Dallas-Vancouver game, and that led to hours of listless hockey. While you can appreciate their position, it's the wrong approach. Simply reminding the referees to whistle fouls, no matter what point of the game they occur, will lead to more power plays and more scoring chances. And maybe let hockey fans get to bed at a decent hour.
posted by SI.com | View comments |
Comments:I have fond memmories of the Spring of 96 and 00 when my beloved Penguins played a 4ot game vs Caps and 5ot vs Flyers. This is what makes the playoffs so great is that their is no time limit. The ratings are so low that why would it matter how long the games are if no one is watching anyways. A shootout is great for regular season, but playoffs... NO THANKS
Excellent idea. Just one question, when do you expect baseball to settle games after 10 innings with a home run derby? Better yet, let's settle the NBA final with freethrows.
I totally disagree that the shootouts are more memorable than the marathons. I avidly follow soccer and hockey and in my experience the result is what's remembered from both. I think there are alternate solutions that should be explored first, such as 4 on 4 play and actually calling penalties (mentioned by the author). I love the marathon games, but Muir is right about the realities of advertising revenue. Something has to happen. Fans should be proactive in making their voice heard as the league considers what to do.
No professional sport settles their sudden death short of a "tradional" ending and hockey should be no different.
I watched all of the Canucks-Stars game, and it was beautiful. Everything playoff hockey should be. You are insane. I have no problem with the shootout in the regular season, but this is do or die. It is true that the games really start to drag as they get into 3+ OT's. That is the beauty of the Cup. You have to earn it. If you allow yourself to get into that kind of situation, maybe you don't have the mettle. These are the things that make the NHL playoffs unique from every other sport.
Don't take it away because it is past your bedtime. If they play until the sun comes up, so much the better. Especially if it is a team that YOUR team will meet in the next round. The good teams will avoid these kind of games, and the teams with players will overcome it. Did everyone forget that Vancouver blew a two goal lead? They played hockey's version of the prevent offense, and it almost killed them. The only thing that saved them was Borat, who held on until the Sedin's could find an opening. This is going to be an excellent series and it will get chippy. Those guys practically live together after 5 plus hours. These are truly the games that mean something. If hockey was truly smart, it would shorten the season by 30 games, balance the schedule, have divisional tournaments, and then have the playoffs. This game would blow up. Not only would I not have shootouts in the playoffs, I'd elimnate them from the regular season. Hockey is the only sport that plays regular-season overtimes with fewer players and eventually a "game" that's different from the basic rules. If there MUST be shootouts in the regular season, then give the winning team TWO points wnd the losing team NONE. Again, no other sport rewards a team simply for playing overtime.
While I'm not sure a shoot out is the answer, staying up till the wee hours watching paint dry is not the solution. Several points I agree with: hold the ref's accoutnable for making calls. If a penalty decides it, the loser was playing undisciplined. Going to 4-4 would definitely open up the ice. Finally, only us die-hard fans will stay up till 2:30 here in the land of the Cowboys. If you want to get the audience (and the dollars that go with), the games can't be a marathon for the average fan as well.
You're so far off the mark it's laughable. Poster No. 2's response is dead on. It's playoff hockey. If the game isn't good enough for TV as is, then go watch bowling. I can't believe you get a paycheck to spout something as patently ridiculous as this.
I was at the 2OT game in Nashville last night. The first 60 minutes produced a good game, but when we got into the second OT, it transformed into a memerable game. The arena rocked all night long. Those with kiddies went home, but every shot, hit, and long pass was oooh'd and ahhh'd was palpable. No shootout could ever generate that much excitement and enthusiasm. I guess if you're watching two teams you dont live and die with, you could have these apathetic feelings. Hike up your skirt Allan and be a fan!
Hey, if basketball gets better ratings, then lets just end tie games with free throws! Isn't that the best of both worlds? Anyone who watched the '99 and '00 Cups awarded deep in overtime would never agree to go to a shootout. That was sport at its finest.
Yeah, Sudden Death OT is where it's at in Hockey. I follow Soccer and Hockey, and the result of having a shootout would be teams that REALLY don't bother to try and score a game winning goal; they'd just play for shootout rather than risk defeat. You see it in every soccer Overtime ever. Sudden death wraps up the tension, hour after hour, until finally the shoe drops and defeat happens. I was listening live on the radio to the longest hockey game in college history, tensing with every power play and close breakawy. When David Meckler finally pushed it through the pipes in the 5th OT (Shorthanded, no less!) to win it for the Elis, I was thrilled beyond belief. Don't end something this wonderful for advertising revenues.
NO thank you, im glad youre not in charge of the NHL, but then again only Gary Bettman is known to ruin the sport anyway.
I have loved watching long marathons of hockey for years they have been televised, i dont care if they took 1 OT period or 5. Like someone else said, "A Shootout is great for the regular season, but not for the Playoffs" i too say NO THANKS, but also its your opinion. The NHL has done a lot to attract new fans at the expense of loyal fans, but I cannot believe they would be stupid enough to do this. It would cause considerable protest from existing fans and players, coach's, gm's. I agree that tv will push to make this change, but I think there's severaly easy ways around it. First off, have commercial timeouts in ot. Not only would this create more advertising revenue, it would also give the players much needed breaks which I think would allow them the extra energy to try to score. As you said the officials also need to call the game the same to create more power plays. They also could look into shifting the games to alternate networks if they run too long (versus, espn2, fox sports). I know this would take a lot of cooperation between networks which isn't always easy, but it is possible.
oh no dont take out the OT's i love watching them fight it out as a team not depending on 1 person it so much better
One long game and you're talking about shoot-outs in the playoffs. That will be the day I stop watching hockey. Anyone who loves and understands the game knows this is the worst thing anyone can do. Are we gonna decide basketball games with dunk contests? Anyone who says it's a good idea should be prevented from either watching or talking about the sport for the rest of their lives. You sir are a moron.
Terrible idea. Were you just looking for something to write? You should keep your ideas to yourself. Your credibility is gone. I will simply pass by your articles from now on.
You are a joke. You are a hack.
This is one of the best rules in the NHL. Don't fool with it. Of all the major North American sports, NHL playoff overtime is the best scenario. Neither football, basketball nor baseball can boast the 'Next Goal Wins' sentiment, no matter how long it lasts. Would you complain of an 18 inning baseball game in postseason? I think not. Team sports need to settle such important games in a team atmosphere.
Game 7, Stanley Cup Finals. The winner of the shootout gets the cup? I would never watch (NHL) hockey again.
Mike Vancouver First, up to this point I have been a die hard fan of Mr. Muirs writing, however, with this absolutely crazy idea of his, i now want to petition the canadian government to revoke his canadian citizenship!!!
You obviously haven't seen Ruutu in a shoot out. Go and check some tape of him last year with the Canucks, he was electric and was usually chosen over the Sedins and had a better conversion rate then Naslund
wonderful plan
next you can propose a mandatory removal of the goalie after the 3rd shooter in the shootout All you have done all season is whine and complain. It's not a "matter of time" Mr. Muir. Not at all.
The day a playoff game is settled by a shootout, the NHL loses all credibility. A game should not be won or lost by one man. I'm not a huge fan of the shootout in the regular season, either, but I understand the marketing value in it. It is exciting, it is fun for the crowd, but it is not a good way to settle something as vastly important as a playoff game. A game where one emotional loss can, and often does, knock a team directly off track and out of contention. I attended one of those marathon games and I must admit, as long as it was, as tiresome as it got...it was still awesome. Yes, I do agree something does need to be done to shorten the length of these marathons, but the shootout isn't it. How about after the first overtime, go to 4 vs. 4 until a winner is found...it'll take much less time to do and take less away from the game. Shootouts are a disgrace even in the regular season. Heaven help hockey if they implement them to decide playoff games !! Let's go back to the MUCH more reasonable "2 points awarded per game" format. If a game ends in a tie, so be it...NO 3 point games.
"tis better to keep quiet and have us assume that you are an idiot, than to open your mouth and confirm it" Ruutu is terrific in the shootout as anyone in Pitts or Van knows well. He would definitely be in the first five shooters and he might just show you something if you actually do take the time to watch this amazing thing we call playoff hockey.
Canuck in DC When will the NHL learn that it has a specific audience and that pandering to a big network is going to do nothing but incense their fan base?
Well Mr. Muir, TSN Canada just ran a poll asking which of the various options for playoff OT were favoured by fans, can you guess the response?
71% favour unlimited 5-on-5 OT 29% for all other options combined 6% for shootout So uh, let's just forget about this 'issue' shall we? Really it is only a big deal because of the time-zone difference. Here in Vancouver it was only 12:30 when the game ended, and let me tell you, as a Canucks fan I was under extreme stress the whole time. Not a dull moment in the whole 80+ minutes. You are on the right track but instead of a shootout, both teams should put on their pink third jerseys and have a triple sow cow competition at centre ice, as we all know the massive ratings that figure skating is getting.
I disagree with your opinion. Besides soccer and tennis (tiebreaker), which other sport decides their playoffs games with a gimmick. The NFL, NBA, MLB, and golf all make their players win playing the game they were just playing. Only college football uses a special situation to end playoff games (bowl games in division IA). Why should we make the NHL different from these other sports? Let them play until someone wins!
Bad Idea.
Although I'm a diehard NHL fan (actually, not really... I USED to be) it's obvious that something needs to be done. I can't believe I stayed up so long to watch the 4th Overtime period, and next time if that happens, I'm not going to waste my time watching overtime periods after the first that really... really... go on and on.
While a shootout is not a good solution in my opinion, I would love to see 4v4 overtime in the playoffs. As well, referees have to make the calls. And to those who mention the NBA or MLB changing it's format... remember that the NHL has abysmal ratings while both the NBA and MLB put up decent numbers. The NHL needs to make its game more appealing to casual viewers. i have no comment i am so flabbergasted at that statement
i think that the author could not be more wrong. shootouts are such a bad way to end a game in the playoffs. (in the regular season as well) i assume that he wants to make the nets larger and limit teams to 3 players on the ice so the score can be 10-8 every game as well. i don't think the author has been involved in hockey for very long.
the nhl has been shoting itself in the foot ever since the early '00's trying to bolster fans from outside the game. doing away with the red line, shoot-outs and attempting to make the net larger is horrible for the way the game was meant to be played. if they want to speed up the action they just need to do three simple things: 1.make the ice surface olympic size. 2.call penalties on a consistant basis. 3.do away with goons and let skilled players play. what they are doing is turning away true hockey fans and families that enjoy the essense of the game. AND NOW WE COMPARING HOCKEY AND BASEBALL ??? YOU KIDDING ME RIGHT ... NOW THATS RETARDED. ANYONE WATCHING BASEBALL HAS NO RIGHT TO SAY A THING ABOUT HOCKEY !
I think four on four would be the way to go. More open ice, harder to implement a lockdown defensive system, more scoring chances.
I think it's a stupid idea. We shouldn't even have shootouts in the regular season. Long overtime games provide the drama that makes the Stanley Cup Playoffs the best tournament in the world. Some of my most memorable hockey memories are from the marathons; Last nights dramatics (my hometown team won!), Pat Lafontaine over the Capitols, Petr Nedved scoring on Olaf Kolzig in'96, Stevie Y scoring from the blueline against St. Louis, Uwe Krupp scoring the Finals winner over Florida....I could go on and on. There's nothing more dramatic than a sudden death victory.
Although you bring up some serious points (i.e. American networks and viewers who couldn't care less), I hope nobody thinks of adopting your solution.
Full Disclosure: I'm a Leafs fan. But I hated the idea of the shootout the moment they introduced it - would Major League Baseball settle the score with a home-run derby? The NBA with a slam dunk competition? Would NFL quarterbacks toss spirals through flaming hoops? It's another reminder of how little respect the game garners south of the border. It's a bit of a catch-22 in that the game must be embraced by Americans before it is respected, but must lower itself to the lowest common denominator (whether they be flaming pucks or false excitement added on to the end of games). How ridiculous for the playoff games and championship hopes of a team sport to rest on the backs of two players! As for the argument of how exciting shootouts are; well, having the owners fight each other to the death would be exciting, too, but has nothing to do with the game that's being played. Were it not for the shootout, my Leafs would have been in the playoffs after the Isles squandered their five minutes of overtime (incl. some pp time). However, to be honest - nobody cares much for these marathon games unless your team is involved. But when that happens, it's like nothing else in sports. No other big four sport (does that moniker even apply to the NHL anymore?) gives such an endurance test for a championship. And yes, I know, poor Americans can't follow a two month winter sport playoff format in the summer, and yes, I know, they'd rather watch late night poker (ooh how's that for fast paced excitement!), but too bad. I'd rather watch a sport I like with fans who like it than attempt to change the game to attract ESPN fans who'd rather watch bowling . If you want to watch bowling, watch bowling. I'll watch hockey, no matter how many teams, no matter how high the payroll gets, so long as it's hockey. I think it's kind of ridiculous that you're even considering the shootout as a way to end a playoff hockey game.
This game is not about individuals, but about a TEAM, and the TEAM should win the game, not three shooters against a goalie, one at a time. I have enough trouble digesting this asinine idea during the regular season, let alone playofff. Why don't we go ahead and take away the goalie and see who can get the most empty net goals the fastest. That would end the games quicker. I guess the bottom line is, if you want the game to be over faster, got to bed and find out the score in the morning. It is unlikely that there will ever be a shootout in the Stanley Cup playoffs. It's like fighting in the game. The media can talk all it wants about a potential change (it might boost the circulation and viewership for a while), but it'll never happen. Why? Because hockey fans don't want the change. And poll after poll shows that hardcore hockey fans (as opposed to the casual ones - ie Americans in non-traditional markets) are adamantly against such an idea. They like the shootout in the regular season, but teams decide it in the playoffs.
You idea that the NHL will eventually favor NBC's potential millions of viewers over the "sure bet" of CBC or TSN doesn't hold water. The NHL has flopped on every American TV deal except for ESPN (who is smart enough to properly schedule NHL games so that extra periods won't interfere with main programming). With the NHL striking out on the American networks, the Canadian ones will hold much more clout. And believe me when I say that Canada still has the most clout with the NHL simply because it's the NHL's biggest revenue source. Finally, there's little need for a change in the first place. To be honest, how often does one of these marathon games come around? In fact, very few playoff games make it to triple overtime. When they do, they become legendary. Where's the logic in making such a radical change to the game to eliminate something that only happens once in a blue moon? Was Muir paid by NBC to write that?
Shootouts are totally bogus in the regular season (imagine deciding baseball games with a homerun derby after the 9th inning). Tampa Bay shouldn't even be in the playoffs with a sub-.500 record, and yet, thanks to the casual fan-pleasing shootouts (notice I didn't say KNOWLEDGABLE fan-pleasing), they are in. The playoffs are two months of pure hockey. It's what makes the Stanley Cup the hardest trophy in sports to win. Ending a playoff game via a shoot-out? Why, to simply cater to the fans, or rather, the media, on the east coast? To allow the major networks in the US to air their late night local news and their late night programming?
Maybe the NHL should have thought about that when they inked the deal with NBC. Then again, maybe NBC should have thought about that when they agreed to pick up NHL games. (Oh, but wait, why would they, as they aren't even paying for the games up front. Always about the almighty dollar, right?). If some people are really so upset about the game going into the 4th OT, the solution is simple: call penalties! If the league is so bent on "upholding the standard of enforcement" (I use the term loosely), why were there only 3 penalties called in the 80+ minutes of the overtime, 2 of which were at the same time in the 2nd OT. Of course, the league will then say the refs did a good job by letting the players play. Welcome to the hypocrisy. The bottom line is, playoff OT in the NHL is the best OT in any sport. I'm not even a fan of either of these teams, but you better believe I stayed up to watch the whole thing. Regardless of the "boring" moments, OT is riveting. Leave it be. If shooutouts are used to decide games in the playoffs, I will officially stop watching hockey. End of story. Look, if the games are going to long, why not just play 4-on-4 overtimes? With the skill of the players, combined with the new rules, most games would be settles in one OT period. Not only that, but 4-on-4 hockey is extremely exciting. Certainly, its better than have the Stanley Cup determined by a skills competition.
only one thing gets me more fired up than a shootout....; 4 on 4 OT. it's exciting, opens the ice up and skilled players (see: Henrik and Daniel Sedin) get more opportunity to make plays. i'm thinking 20 minutes of 4 on 4 hockey would definately produce a winner, and if not by all means lets see a shootout so i don't have to stumble into work on 4 hours sleep all spring.
My sister and I drove about 350 miles to Pittsburgh to see the Flayers-Pens in the 2000 playoffs. 5 OTs later, we hopped into the car and drove back home. I would have sat there if they played until the middle of the next day. No way there should be shootouts. I'll accept NBC moving the game to CNBC if necessary. No one watches that network anyway.
You're just tired & cranky
NO SHOOTOUTS IN PLAYOFFS!!!!!!! you have got to be kidding me, just look at the rest of these responses...
only one schmuck out of everyone said that he would settle on a shootout, and thats only after 20 minutes of 4 on 4 if people are true hockey fans they dont want to see games decided by shootouts especially in the playoffs... what they could do is go into a 4 on 4 after the 1st overtime, with all the extra ice, someone is bound to score, especially after they have already all played 80 minutes of hockey, muir you need to listen to some real hockey people like Cherry, or Roenick... They got it rite If you like the shootout start your own shootout league bf I understand where you're coming from, and I think that the shootout in the regular season has been a great addition, but it should never be seen in the playoffs. A shootout stresses just a few players on a team. The Stanley Cup is awarded to the TEAM that is the most dedicated, the most willing to sacrifice, and has the most heart. Going into a shootout takes a lot of the team aspect out of the sport, it becomes about individuals.
As for the TV ratings, I have a hard time believing that any channel, including NBC, counts on a sudden ratings boost at 2am on a Wednesday to make their money off advertising. A sudden-death overtime victory is the most glorious way to win any sports championship; a shootout would cheapen it. In addition to my earlier post in which I opposed the idea of a shootout, I would like to add that OT thrillers are also hugely important in the early rounds of the playoffs. A seven-game series with a few games going into double-overtime tires a team out, giving them a disadvantage to any team that sweeps a series and has time to rest up. That's an enormous part of the playoffs that I feel is very important.
Darren Dreger of TSN had it right, this is a time zone issue. For those of us in the East, it was a 3pm finish, but out West it was only 12, which is certainly tolerable from bed-time hour perspective. As for broadcasting, if the NBC can't hack long overtime games during the playoffs, I'm not interested in them broadcasting the playoffs at all. A network that is blessed with an amazing broadcasting deal complaining about the length of only a minor amount of games seems like adding insult to injury.
Of note, over the past four or five years, an average of two games have gone to three of more overtimes during the entirety of the playoff season. Considering that NBC does not broadcast many of the playoff series', the odds are they will miss those games. From a traditionalist perspective, the implementation of shootouts during the playoffs would undermine the character, depth and determination required to progress through the playoffs. Being able to take a physical beating far beyond anything the regular season can prepare you for, the ability to roll every line on your bench without fear that it could be the last shift of the game, and having to find every last ounce of energy to stay mentally focused enough to make a play all make overtime perhaps the most demanding team sport trial available. Why take that away? Schedule appeasement is on thing, and as an Ottawa native I can except the 3pm and 1pm games versus Pittsburgh, but making a fundamental change to how the game operates during the playoffs should never be done to Pacify a network. You did refer to an issue which was clearly evident in the latter portion of the Vancouver-Dallas game, the officiating. While I'm not always a fan of the new, stricter rules, it was fairly evident that during that game the standard was not enforced. Consistency is important, and a penalty should be a penalty in the first period as it should in the seventh. Playing a discipled game is part of the mental focus alluded to earlier. A friend of mine in Dallas, who isn't a particularly big fan of hockey watched the game in its entirety. I don't know if he's the exception or the rule, but I believe it goes to show that there is enough interest in the format for it to remain. Will all the hypocrites please stand up? If the writer had been talking about fighting and used the way they do things in baseball and basketball as an example, you guys would have ripped him and said "hockey is different" but you're happy to use those other sports when it suits your anti-shootout argument? That's hilarious! Important hockey games HAVE been settled by shootouts for decades at the WCs and Olympics. That's a fact. And if you don't recognize that TV drives the bus then you aren't paying attention.
Shootout in the playoffs, heck no! Just because some people thing overtime is boring, doesn't mean everyone thinks it's boring.
As for NBC and the role of advertsing revenue, I think the NHL should give all its coverage to Versus, who seems to me to be much more invested in the sport. Why settle for being 3rd, 4th fiddle, or worse, on NBC, when there are other options? before i had read this commentary, i spontaneously thought: "three ot's and then shootout would be reasonable". The problem I see with the current system, is that a) penalties are not endorsed b) teams play defense anyhow. I think shootouts are great, and 3 ot's are a reasonable time for playoffs. As for the regular season, i prefer the german point system, where the winner in regulation gets 3 points versus 0, and OT/Shootout winner gets 2 versus 1, so the point total stays consistent, and teams are encouraged (and would be in the nhl intra-divison-games more-so) to seek the win in regulation.
What a joke of an article from a joke of a writer. Go back to bed little Allan, mommy doesn't want you to stay up that late. It's whiny crap from morons writers like yourself that have already done tremendous damage to this game (Fighting? No way!) and it will continue to be writers like you who will damage this game for years to come.
Simply put, go to hell. As a "new" (American) hockey fan (as of three seasons ago) I absolutely DESPISE the idea of a shoot outs in overtime.
The only thing I hate worse than that is the idea of changing a sport for "new fans". As a new fan I find it completely insulting. I'll take this time to rant about how I hate hearing that hockey is too hard for the casual viewer, too complicated/fast/whatever because if that's all casual or non or new fans hear then that's what they'll believe. I mean, if long time hard core hockey fans think it's hard to for someone to start watching then non fans are going to think that! I talk up the game about how exciting and fast it is, how it's easy to follow if you just begin looking at it like a huge game of keep away (which may make people cringe but I explained it that way to my 80ish grandmother who watched a game and declared "this is easier to follow than football!") Off my soap box. I'm not a fan of either Vancouver or Dallas but I want to see the whole game (I don't have the overtimes), call me weird but I do. Mr. Muir,
Please stop covering sports. Seriously just hand in your press pass and write a cooking review column or something you have a better understanding of. Hockey has enough problems without your lame ideas, one of them being the shootout itself. You claim to be a purist yet say the regular season shootout is "wildly popular". Well I guess if you live in the South and don't understand the team sport of hockey it is, but ask anyone in Toronto, Detroit, Philadelphia, Boston what they think about the shoot-out and you'll hear an "oldtime" hockey fans different opinion. Yeah I want to see Sydney Crosby's face more (NOT). IT'S A TEAM SPORT, not an individual sport. Like others have said you don't decide the MLB playoffs with home run derbies or the NBA playoffs with free throws. If you can't stay up 4 extra hours to watch your team then your not really a fan of that team anyhow, go to bed. Or better use the extra time to write you cooking column because sports is too difficult for you to cover. The easisest solution to stop the games from going to multiple OTs is for the refs to, oh, I don't know, enforce the rules in OT. These games would end a lot sooner if you threw the occasional power play into the mix.
Completely disagree with this column. I watched every minute of the overtime and it was some of the most exciting hockey I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot). Yes there were some dull moments where both teams were playing not to lose, but for the most part it was great and I wouldn't have changed a thing. I could go for 4 on 4 hockey after the 1st OT though, but shootouts in the playoffs? Perish the thought!
Muir,
2 words: SHUT UP. You used to be my fav SI writer until you came up with this idea... If NBC doesn't want the risk of OT ruining their revenu, then don't bid on the Cup Finals. I mean they don't even care enough to show games 1 and 2. And forward this to Bettman when he considers your dumb idea and hopefully all these responses will give him a sober second thought before publishing something as moronic as what you just wrote. Too bad you didnt grow up playing hockey instead of just writing about it, maybe then you would understand. Looking forward to more 4 OTs!!! CR This guy Muir is a complete loser! Shootouts during the regular season are a joke, in the playoffs they'd just solidify the fact the the NHL is a hack league and way below the MLS. What a reject! A bigger hammerhead than the great commissioner Betteman.
There's no need for such a drastic remedy. Just go to four-on-four and "remind" the refs to do their jobs. Those referees should be suspended a game or two. That would send a message to the others that the league expects the same standard of refereeing regardless of the game situation. A four-on-four format would elimate the trap and give the skilled players even more room to work. Very few games would get beyond the first overtime. Of course, Lamouriello and the Devils will exercise their be-all-end-all veto over this idea and continue with their mind-numbing trap forever...
Stupid suggestion - implement shootouts in the playoffs - look for lots of empty seats...
If you don't like watching the game - or its too late - turn off the TV and leave hockey fans alone. You have got to be kidding. Did you write this just to get picked up by hockey blogs? No way should this nor do I think it will happen. For the hockey fan, the playoffs are like heaven and those bags under my eyes at work are like a badge of courage to tell others 'yep, I saw the goal at 3AM'. No hockey fan wants this. To pander to NBC on this point would be pathetic. It is bad enough that teams in the Western Conference have back to back home and away games because of TV but this would be hockeys breaking point. As of now, all hockey seems to have is die-hard, core fans and now you suggest alienating them too?
We could also settle the superbowl with a field goal kicking contest and the world series with a home run derby. Come to think of it the Daytona 500 went on a little long lets just have a winner take all drag race! You're citizenship has now been revoked
Memo to Mr. Muir: This isn't soccer; it's hockey. You may not like to stay up to watch playoff overtime hockey, but there is no more exciting, tense spectacle in sports. Gimmicks are fine during the long slog of the regular season, but they should not be used to determine the winner of the Stanley Cup. Hockey is a game of tradition, honor, grit and toughness. And the grind of the Stanley Cup Playoffs embodies that, including marathon overtime games. It's something that distinguishes this great game from all others in sport. Your belief that shootouts should be used in the playoffs is typical of the "Let's be a contrarian for the heck of it" style of "journalism" practiced by SI. Why don't you direct your ire toward things in the game that REALLY need to be changed, like the unbalanced schedule, the terrible U.S. TV package, no-touch icing and hits to the head? The Stanley Cup Playoffs without unlimited overtimes would be like using a tennis ball instead of a puck in the games. Simply unfathomable. But you're getting the rise out of NHL fans that I'm sure you wanted and expected when writing this ridiculous column. Congratulations.
Shoot outs are not hockey. They may be a fine way to break a tie in the regular season, but they are anathema to the core of the sport. I don't care if a game goes to 21 overtimes, the league has to reschedule the entire playoffs, all four goalies are used and someone dies of exhaustion, (in which case, as professionals they should have a greater understanding of their limits). The valid point you make is simply to officiate the games with regularity and consistency with regard to the rulebook.
Muir is a typical new breed type.Why not ask the players how they feel about OT vs shootouts ? As I recall ; both the Pens and Flyer players wanted the the game to end fair and square in 5 OT's in 2000. One of the greatest games I ever witnessed.
First off, all, everyone stop calling Allan an idiot. He has really good points, even though I disagree with him.
My big problem with endless OT, from a league-wide standpoint, is that younger fans can't get to see the end of games because eventually they go to bed. Yeah, all of us, including myself, love playoff hockey, but I also want my 8 year old nephew to be able to see the whole game too. Anyone who yaps about 20 OTs being okay is selfish and stupid - its no way to cultivate a love of the game. The trick is not to just go to a shootout, but rather to increase the likelihood of a goal being scored in OT. That means 1) calling penalties the same way you do in the other three periods, 2) four-on-four hockey to increase scoring chances, 3) referees not being afraid to award a penalty shot. Sorry (Canadian) hockey purists, wake up and smell the (American) money. You may not think Mr Muir is right, but his opinion is correct. What NBC wants, NBC will get. Why? Because Bettman doesn't give a fig about integrity of the game, Hockey Night in Canada or any of that crap. He just wants a bigger American audience and their bigger (by 5-cents) American dollars. What the heck do you think they expanded into Phoenix, Atlanta, Nashville and Columbus for? A cultural exchange?
Like dollar coins (seen any $1 bills lately?), playoff shootouts are coming. Take that to the (international conglomerate) bank. ps: go Ducks! Forgotten never, Jets forever! You can skip right by turning in your "hockey purist" card. Just go directly to turing in your "hockey fan" card. I confess that I went to bed after the second overtime. However, that wasn't because I felt like the game had become something to "endure". It was simply that I had to get up for work in the morning. Since your job is to watch hockey, you don't have that excuse.
I stayed up for all 4 OTs; I too am a purest but I think Alan has a point about T.V. My solution: shootout after 1 OT of 5 on 5 in the 1st round; shootout after 1 OT of 5 on 5 and 1 OT of 4 on 4 in the second round; no shootout for the conference finals or the Cup series. As for Power Plays making it more exciting, until the officials can figure out how to call the game "consistently and fairly" (is that actually happening somewhere?), I'd rather they err on the side of "letting them play." The first OT of the Canucks/Stars game was what I call real hockey - hitting was allowed for a change.
Not happening. No one will EVER take a chance of their playoff hopes being decided by a cheap gimmick like the shootout. The arguments about it being like deciding a game on free throws or a homerun derby are legitimate arguments. I would argue that, technically, there is nothing less gimmicky or cheap about a fluke goal in triple overtime, but ultimately that is not the point. Winning in the playoffs is the #1 generator of money, from both ticket sales AND advertising. Winning is everything. No one will ever be willing to risk all of that on a shootout. It would be like gambling everything on black 14 on the roulette wheel when you are an expert poker player.
--Shane, Tallahassee, Florida Some good observations - long games in any sport interfere with TV. This is particularly true of hockey. Yet shootouts are valueless - why not just toss a coin? Perhaps giving each team a two-minute player advantage until either a goal is scored or time runs out, and then comparing the results. At least - unlike the shootout - it would be real hockey.
Sports is an entertainment industry that includes hockey, if the NHL can make more money and have a larger audience at the expense of the traditional game they will institute the playoff shootout. While ,I dont agree with this when it comes down to it the NHL is a business first and foremost and will do this to attract more viewers. Bottom line is Canadians will be pissed but still watch it while American audience and advertising revenue will increase.
Jakub, Canada Some of these comments are getting rediculous, too
You know what, if you can't keep your eyes open for a 4 OT thriller, then go to bed, you sissy! If you can't be entertained by something as captivating and thrilling as a sudden death, first goal wins OT period, followed by another, followed by another...you don't love the game. I understand that the media controls this game now...but, they should have thought about what they were getting into when they signed the contract, too. How about this, get rid of Gay Bettman (or is that supposed to be Gary...can't remember...), bring back the old school. Get a real hockey guy in the office so the league can quit getting drug through the mud. I blame this on Bettman more so than anyone else. Would we even be having this discussion now if he had never suggested going to a shootout to end a regular season game? NO! The thought wouldn't have even crossed anyones mind. If the shootout had never been implemented in the first place, NO ONE WOULD CARE HOW LONG THE GAME TOOK! This is stupid, people. It's just like saying the goals need to be larger and fighting needs to be banned. If the game has to be changed before you'll apprecitate it, we don't want you as a fan anyways. Matt B. Smashville, TN Are you kidding me? Please go watch soccer with Gary Bettman and leave our sport alone.
I stayed up to watch the whole game and I didn't even care who won. I think the way the Olympics handle overtime is an affront to the whole point of a *team* sport. I don't even like shoot outs in *regular* season games. If people can't appreciate the uniqueness of NHL playoff hockey if a game ends "after their beddy times," that's their problem, not the leagues. Unfortunately due to geography not a single hockey game was televised in my area. When I heard about the Dallas/Vancouver 4OT thiller I was heartbroken that I wasn't able to watch it. I'm against shootouts in playoff hockey, or any other sport for that matter. I felt cheated when the World Cup was decided by a shootout. There is no exhiliration like 'sudden death' OT. Keep it as it is NHL please.
How about a second overtime period of 4 on 4 hockey first? But no triple overtimes, I agree the game needs to end at some point.....
How about this, one or two, 20-minute OT periods played five-on-five, then one period played four-on-four, and then a shout-out, IIHF style (five unique shooters then an alternating free-for-all)?
The thing about NHL playoff OT that is that the create legends, and to say that a shoot-out is memorable is hogwash. I remember being the Washington-Islanders game in 1987 when Pat Lafontaine scored to win it, and I talk with my dad about that game to this day. The game on Wednesday night may not have been as entertaining as some of the other marathons OT games in recent past, but it was still good hockey and all of the players fought, and fought, to the point of exhaustion, and then fought some more. The Stanley Cup is the hardest championship to win in all pro-sports, and these marathons are one of the roadblocks that jump up from time-to-time that both teams in the game have to get through or past or over. I guess certain assurances are need to be given to NBC by the NHL in regards to game times in order to get the NHL on the air and find new fans, but you have to keep the diehards happy as well. I saw interviews with the players the day after the Vancouver-Dallas game, and not one of them thought a change to the format was a good idea. Lets hope Bettman and the league governors to a better job of listening to the players than when they decided not to change the regular season schedule to see more games between the Eastern and Western Conference teams. Everything must evolve with time or risk becoming irrelevant or obsolete, but evolution happens slowly, a little bit at a time. Here’s hoping that if a change needs to be made, it is made with the best interests of the game in mind, not because we may miss some lame late local news followed by Jay Leno’s inept monologue. Dear Alan:
One of my most fond memories would be related to a marathon game in the Stanley Cup final where the Edmonton Oilers beat the Boston Bruins. Ray Bourque changed his gloves about a dozen times because of the perspiration, players literally lost 5 or 7 pounds as a result of this being a marathon game. To reduce this to a shootout would cheapen the result. The team tht wins in a shootout isn't necessarily the best or the one that is the hungriest but rather the one that has the best 3 shooters for this as evidenced by Pittsburgh Beating Ottawa 3-1 in the reguklar season series with 2 of those wins coming in a hootout. Mind you, remember what Ottawa did to Pittsburgh Wednesday night. Further, I am not a fan of the shootout. I remember when a team that earned 00 points in the regular season was truly an elite team. In the west, 5 or 6 of the top 8 teams have 100 or more points thanks to the single point awarded in a shootout loss. I say go back to the old way where you let the players play and if the game ends in a tie, so be it. Sorry - I understand where you're coming from as sooner or later, everything comes down to money. But you've identified the real issue and perhaps it needs more attention as it appears the refs waffled. And I thought we were through with the "let them play mentality.
I was at Game 7 of the Caps/Islanders series in 1987 - won by Pat LaFontaine in the fourth overtime. GAME 7 - FOUR overtimes. You'd want that possibly decided by a shootout? No way. You're looking at this as a writer with nothing more than an interest in the outcome. You can't imagine the suspense a fan goes through everytime either team skates into the opponent's zone. Everytime through four overtimes. . . . Absolutely unbelievable and something I'll never forget (my team lost, btw). A shootout in this situation would be nothing more than a cheap high to the winning fans and an unfair brutal letdown to the losers. If my team lost a game 7 in a shootout I would be FUMING mad. No way does it belong in the postseason. On the other hand, if my team is playing 4th or 5th overtime I am on the edge of my seat. If it's two other teams playing that long, I just go to bed. It doesn't mean I love the sport any less I just read about the winning goal the next day and maybe watch a video feed of it on the internet and go on with my life. It's not a problem.
The 2nd poster here about the home run derby in baseball and the free throws in the NBA hit the nail on the head. That was a brilliant post, I LOL'd. Normally I agree with Muir but he's way off on this. Hockey is the only team sport where the constant changing of offense to defense makes overtime more dramatic than baseball, basketball and football due to the sudden death.
To change over from a team sport to set up 1 on 1 plays is removing what makes playoff hockey the most exciting team sport to watch. The entire game is played as 1 teamversus another. To turn it into an individual skills competition is ridiculous. With all respect Mr. Muir, you're way off on this 1. Alan
Please tell me you wrote this article because you were trying to create some buzz. If not, as someone said previously, "you sir are a moron". Who gives a crap what works for NBC? If NBC was interested they would show more than a handful of games during the season. NBC is already getting the better games to show while Americans are flipping the channel looking for anything to do with football. Why don't you suggest settling NFL playoff games with a fieldgoal kicking contest? I am sure people would embrace that idea. Go back to bed Alan so you can rest up for tonight's games. Clearly you are delusional. Oh yea- settle a playoff game with a skills competition. What a great idea! If most sports fans think hockey is a joke already, why not givem them further evidence to support that argument.
Would you suggest ending a baseball playoff game with a home run derby after say 14 innings? I still remember sitting in my grandfather's living room with my dad watching the NY Islanders - Captials playoff game that I think was the longest game at that time- I was on the edge of my seat for hours since every time a shot was fired you never knew if that was going to be it. Too tired after the game? Suck it up and drink more coffee in the morning. No matter what the league does to pander to NBC, the American audience is not going to be there. The only thing that can happen is that they alienate the people who actually are watching the game they love and reduce revenues even further. Please, for the love of God, do not give Bettman any more stupid ideas. We all know that he doesn't care about the game and he'll jump at whatever idea comes out of the media next.
Well, Mr Muir, you certainly got the reaction that you wanted.
Can you imagine in a series if Team A beats Team B 10-0 in the first three games. The next four all finish goalless and Team B wins all four in the shootout. Panic of the streets of London (Ontario)... While I favour unlimited overtime if there is a necessary time limit imposed by whatever consideration how about making the series point series. You give a point to each team after x number of sudden death overtimes and a 2 points for a win. An 8 point series is equivalent to a best of seven. Of course one has to figure out what happens if the game is tied in the 8th game and both teams have 7 points.
Why should the NHL or any other league for that matter, make a bad change to their game so that people in New York and Pennsylvania don't have to stay up and watch the games too late? I live in the Boston area and I decided to go to bed after the first overtime. That was my choice and I had to live with it. I don't hear anyone talking about how the west fans who have jobs can't watch their teams when they play on the east coast because they are at work. Boo-hoo! Just more nonsense coming from someone who is considered an NHL "Insider". No wonder this league is dying a slow death.
No. As a player and a fan, it is simple, hockey is a team sport. Sure we love the individual with extraordinary skills, but the game is won or lost by a team effort. It is ridiculous to suggest that a playoff hockey game should be decided by a shooter and a goalie - regular season, fine, but not post season.
NBC sucks! Who gives a .... what they think. Maybe they'll try and turn the NHL into another crappy reality show?
Great Idea Allan. Game 7 of the finals. The horn blows after the 2nd OT, and out comes the Zamboni to scrape the ice for the shoot out. Man, can you feel the intensity. 82 regular season games, 4 playoff series, and it all comes down to.....A SHOOTOUT! Why don't we just take 3 players and a goalie from each side and head out to the pond?! Or maybe we'll pull out the SuperChexx and settle it with a rousing game of dome hockey! SI's hockey coverage has always been poor and you've just sunk it to a new level! Maybe Johnny O can drop the gloves and teach you something about playoff hockey.
Speaking of the Caps/Islanders 4 OT game, if there were no overtimes, we would not have been treated to seeing young color man Bill Clement broadcasting shirtless and wearing his necktie as a headband. Now THAT will keep you awake!
Honestly - Why not? It sucks to lose a game like this either way, but the WJHC showed that there is no shame in settling a game with a shootout. Its just as exciting, or possibly moreso, since you don't have to suffer through a defenseman who has been on the ice for over an hour trying to make a play.
Offending the purists of the game? Pfft. Its evolution. Bring on the shootout. I will still be elated if my team wins and heartbroken if they lose, but with a shootout I can function at work the next day. I'm a Wings fan and pretty much watched them blow all season long at the shoot out. That being said, I still enjoyed the shootout during the regular season but feel that there is no place for it in the playoffs. I watched Detroit lose to bad or mediocre teams in the shootout. Having it in the playoffs would only ruin the credibility of the game and no one would really know who the better team was. I stayed up until 3 am and fell asleep during the 4th ot only because I had been up since 6 in the morning. And that's with neither team being my home team. If it had been the wings, I would have been eating coffee grounds to stay awake. Don't take that from me. Let the better team win, not the better shooter.
I live in Dallas but grew up in Detroit and am a long time, died in the wool, Red Wings fan.I was a Red Wings fan even before their current run of playoff appearances and go back to the years when Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay were established stars.
I watched the entire game between Dallas and Vancouver and there is nothing more exciting even though Dallas lost. The idea to decide any game - regular season or playoff - with a shootout is repulsive. A tie is a tie and a team ought not be able to earn points in the standing through a skills competition that has nothing to do with the team. The Stanley Cup playoffs are the most exciting playoffs of any sport and your hare brained idea would simply ruin the playoffs. Legends have been made from past long overtimes. The Red Wings have been involved in their share. The fact is that the quadruple overtime was only the sixth longest playoff game. If you go back and check NHL history you will find that the longer games were between storied rivals with big name players and there were memorable stories resulting from those games. I am tired of you and those of your ilk, including Bettman and his Madison Avenue crowd, ruining the game of hockey. The sheer idea of deciding hockey games with shootouts is ludicrous. Fighting? It has been a staple of NHL hockey for as long as I can remember. I remember anticipating matchups between Detroit and Toronto because of the antipathy between the teams - usually resulting in a tussle between Ted Lindsay and any Toronto forward wanting to take him on. Which moves me on to the fact that Bettman and his cronies have absolutely ruined good hockey for Detroit fans. Before Bettman arrived on the scene, tickets for the traditional rivals - Toronto and Montreal - were the hottest tickets in town. Now, the Red Wings don't even play their traditional, long time rivals. Instead, we get a constant diet of Columbus, Nahsville and St. Louis. Frankly, I can't get worked up about any of these teams even if Nashville has a good team. Bottom line: instead of alienating the fan base for so called new fans, how about letting the exciting game of hockey sell itself without the tinkering of those who want immediate gratification. What a joke of a column! Let's eliminate 100+ years of history in order to appease a US network. Give me a break. I can remember so many classic OT games. MATTEAU, MATTEAU! MAY DAY, MAY DAY. The Miracle on Manchester. My beloved Pens with Nedved against the Caps and then the heartache as Primeau went top shelf in 5 OT's. You say these games aren't memorable. Tell that to the people who love the sport.
On average there are 2 games each season during playoffs that go beyond the second overtime. I think you can stay up late every once in a while Alan.
Please, thats the most ridiculous thing I've heard. As a junior hockey player, that is the worst way to lose. During the season its not a big deal as its great for fans, but imagine losing the 7th game of the Cup Final in a shootout, it would be the worst thing for the game. Hockey's playoffs are know as the most grueling marathon in sports and lets leave it that way. I understand the business aspect of it, so yes maybe playing 4-on-4 is a good idea. Shootout is not. Remember the players aren't being paid for the playoffs, this is their time to play for the Cup and nothing else. The NHL should look into getting back with ESPN or someone whose ratings would increase with a marathon game.
If this does come to fruitition, then the NHL might as well change all of the rules to cater to Corporate Advertising America. Multiple OTs have long been a major source of excitement and entertainment for the hockey fan. Hockey fans don't want casual viewers to come and mess with what we like. It isn't right, just like having shootouts to determine playoff games isn't right.
I'm 11 years old and finally allowed to watch a whole game even if it goes really late. If they switch to a shoot out in the playoffs i would never watch hockey again. i didnt start watching hockey until two years ago, and now i dont want to do anything else. please dont change it, and let more fights happen in the games.
Hrm, while I like shootouts in regular season I can't see them in the finals. I've liked hockey for years but this is the first time, living in Texas, that I've had a chance to follow a whole season. As a Stars fan I was literally praying by 2OT. If I hadn't had to be up at 6am I would have watched past the 3rd. My issue is not that the game lasted so long but that they called nothing. It would have been much more dramatic with some power plays but there were barely any. The refs might as well have stepped of the field and let them play NHL Hitz style. Call regular penalties and games won't normally last that long. And if they do use shootouts in the playoffs they should only be for the first/first two rounds. I can't image them for the cup.
Shoot outs are for soccer...and should stay in the regular season. Ot is playoff hockey...If you don't like it...Don't watch it. I'll gladly do your job...And better.
http://canucksreport.blogspot.com/ If it were up to NBC, overtime would be decided by a rock,paper, scissor contest. But that might cut into their high-quality news programming and Jay Leno's oh so clever monologue. Alternatively, NBC would prefer having the team's GM's flip a coin in advance. Which would be a great way to end a team's 82+ game season. And then after that viewers can tune into Rip Hamilton's free-throw contest against Shaq O'Neil in the Eastern Finals. With all the time saved real sports fans will also be able to catch the replay of Jeff Gordan and Dale Earndhart Jr's drag race. But seriously, too much is on the line, Allan. Give your head a shake. Stick up for real fans of the game, not wagon hoppers and might-be fans. But knowing Betman, your guess will probably be right. And if that'ts the case, I'll become an instant ex-NHL fan.
If 'endure' is a word that you have to use for watching playoff overtime hockey, go cover another sport. Seriously. There really isn't anything else to say to you that hasn't already been said.
- John B, Victoria I was at the game - there's only one word to describe it - EPIC!!
I'm going to teh game tonight and hoping for more of the same. No penalties?!!? Are you kidding me. There was a 5 on 3 in the second overtime period - that has to be a first for an NHL overtime game. The NHL will never be a NBC prime time sport - it's that simple. Give ESPN teh rights and they can flip the game to ESPN2 if it's taking too long. Playoff shootouts are for soccer players and European hockey players. NO. Shootouts should never be alowed to take place in the playoffs. OT is where heroes are made and legends remembered. A shootout is no fair way for a team to win. If a team is getting beaten to loose pucks ad hit all they have to do is just play for the shootout and thats when it gets boring. You need to earn the Stanley Cup not luck your way by on a penalty shot.Let all 10 skaters and a goaltender decide the game not penalty shots.
WC Hockey is exciting, and yes so are the shootouts, but only if your team wins. It leaves a feeling of disgust and resentment when your team/country loses because the results are not validated. In no way have I ever respected a team after a shoot out, How can I?
Too much importance on hockey still remains on the goalie. The NHL should shrink the pads even more. The net is six feet wide and their pads take up four. I don't want to see Lacrosse type scores but at times I feel like goals are near impossible. Some might say that refs need to blow the whistle more. That does not make the game better. Watching power play after power play is just as bad as watching shootouts, and is comparable to watching a half-court game of basketball. Hockey is a contact sport. Let them make contact (minus the hooking and stick work)and get rid of the shootout all together, make the regular season OT 20 minutes and bring back the tie. A shootout wouldnt be so bad in the early rounds but a stanley cup game seven shootout...I turn green at the thought. The real issue is why are the whistles so emphatically out away in overtime...was there an penalty for four periods of extra hockey...is that even possible...if the refs would call the whole game like they do the regualtion time the games would not have to go on forever and ever. I find the whole lets put the whistles and let them play stance arbitrary and just plain dumb
That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. A post-season shootout. Are you serious? Its playoff hockey for a reason. They deserve to play the game until it rightfully ends.
It has never been that way and it should never change. As a Canadian, this idea is an insult to the game and to its players. I was at the Dallas - Anaheim game a few yrs back that went to 5 OTs. Its incredible. Not once did I ask myself when will this game end. No other sport bends over backwards to please people who aren't its fans like hockey. If true fans like the OT as it is, and judging buy the comments I've read here that is an understatement, then let's leave well enough alone. 5 minutes after a shootout ends you'd be hard pressed to remember any of the goals, but I'll remember Lafontaine's winner from '87 and Henrik's goal from the other night forever.
Andrew from Vancouver If you want to remove ALL of the drama, why not resort to a simple coin toss? And an added bonus: no one would get injured... probably.
Yikes - of course it was long...but so what?
Riddle me this...when the baseball all-star game ended in a tie - weren't you horrified? How about if game 7 of the World Series....after 9 innings were decided by a homerun contest...wouldn't that be exciting? The great players would spin in their graves. Or game 7 of the NBA....tied? No Problem! We shoot free throws to decide...make it even more fun by having the opposition pick your shooter - I choose Shaq!! ...last but not least - let's break a Superbowl tie by kicking extra points!! I am pragmatic enough to understand the TV dollars...but with all due respect the idea is a non-starter....if the fans don't understand the game, they shouldn't watch. In Muir's defense, I understand why the US networks would push for such a format. The average American would rather watch Deal or No Deal reruns rather than Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals, so NBC would rather make the sensible business decision and give the people what they want.
But the NHL Commish needs to give the people what they want too - and that means not bowing to the networks to try snaring more viewers, it's making sure those of us true hockey fans who stayed with the league during the dark days of the Neutral Zone Trap and the Lockout are satisfied. And true hockey fans like me have spoken: Keep unlimited OT playoff hockey! Allan - When your articles first started popping up here, I was skeptical at first. Hockey writers as young as myself are rarely as attuned to the game as the senior writers, but over time (no pun intended) you proved yourself, IMO at least. Here however, I think you couldn't be further off the mark. Given some of these responses, I hope that you can admit that your opinion is of the small minority.
Frankly, if you have a problem staying up late enough to watch the entire game, turn it off and go to bed. With high speed internet, and 25-hour sports networks the highlights are seconds away. If you couldn't pry yourself away from the TV, then theres a reason for it - and that reason is the reason that hockey cannot consent to be marginalized by a shootout. I'm not a fan of the shootout in general, mostly because a game that's tied with 10 minutes to play often heads to a shootout, as teams play not to lose. But honestly, after watching the World Cup elimination rounds... doesn't the shootout leave you feeling a little empty? Maybe the better team won, maybe not, but surely they didn't earn it. Was anybody complaining about Games 4 & 5 of the 2004 ALCS going for 5+ hours? How about the triple-OT Celtics-Suns game from 1976? Let the players play.
...I thought this was a pretty cool idea while I was watching the game myself. I would have it be after 2 OTs though. Or something. And maybe have the OTs be 4 on 4. I have no idea. But the hockey isn't even fun to watch when they've been playing that long. They're just tired and playing not to lose. And inevitably, the puck makes some dumb bounce and ends up in the perfect place for someone and the game is over. It turns into an endurance game, not a hockey game. And while endurance is no doubt valuable to players, all sports have players with endurance. Lots of it. Hockey is unique in that it allows even the opportunity for a shootout. There are 'shoot outs' in the World Cup, and that seems to be pretty popular...
quote:
"Game 7, Stanley Cup Finals. The winner of the shootout gets the cup? I would never watch (NHL) hockey again. Mike Vancouver" Hey Mike, you still watching olympic hockey by any chance? I am so glad my father is not alive to hear this one. That is the craziest thing I've ever heard. Almost as bad as the "laser" puck for those fans who couldn't see it on the ice. Some of the best plays and goals are made in overtime. NBC should give their head a shake.
I'm sick and tired of game formats being changed for whining casual fans who have no real interest in the game - or even worse for corporate sponsors or TV - playoffs throughout all major sports go to OT. I would rather network television just stay away from sports altogether. Keep the format as it is.
I don't care if they play for four days, let alone four periods. Shootouts to decide playoff games are bad, bad, bad. Like Anonymous said, hey, let's settle basketball games with a freethrow competition...I pick Shaq...NOT!
Your a joke!!!!
Like many others, I am flabbergasted that someone who writes about hockey for a living would propose such an inane idea.
I had to go to bed after the first overtime because my alarm clock was set to ring at 5:30 a.m. in the Eastern Time Zone, and I was unhappy the the entire next day that I wasn't able to stay up and watch every second until the puck finally crossed the goal line again. That is such a east coast mentality...it was 12:30 where the game was played when it ended. That really isn't that late.
YOU'RE AN IDIOT, WHAT THE HECLL IS BETTER THAN OVERTIME HOCKEY?? GO BACK TO YOUR GOLF AND NASCAR IF YOU DON'T LIKE CONTESTS
I'll be honest, I was dead after watching the game but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. These marathon games are the best part about playoff hockey. You get to watch two teams slug it out when the game really matters. Sure, shootouts are fine for the regular season when the games don't really mean that much, but for the playoffs? Are you kidding? Two of the best games that I can remember were the 3OT Game 6's of '99 and '00.
"Important hockey games HAVE been settled by shootouts for decades at the WCs and Olympics"
Those are fun events but really just sideline events. The Stanley Cup is what it is all about for hockey players and deciding a playoff game with a shoot out is a joke. Hockey is an entertaining sport but they really have to quit selling out to try and become more popular with non-fans. Typical...Once in a blue moon a game runs more than 3 or four hours, and someone thinks we have to change the whole system. The Canucks and Stars first game was fantastic and very appealing to anyone who REALLY likes hockey. Come on Allan, if you can't handle that much hockey in one sitting, don't play pretend and fool people into thinking you know enough about it to write a column about it.
Stopped trying to Americanize the sport and just enjoy it...you probably want larger nets and 4 quarters vs 3 periods. Hockey is the greatest team game and " If hockey was an easy game to play, it would have been called football" where there is a whopping 12 minutes of action per game.
Are you nuts? What are you getting old? Those over time games are what you tell your grandchildren about when you old. Legend are born in those games. If you really are in favor of shootouts then you need to go cover a more gentle sports like Lawn bowling. That way the games will be done by 4:00PM just in time for the earlybird special.
Shoot-out solution is terrible, but realistically games do need to be shortened. Why not 4 on 4 in 1st overtime, then 3 on 3 in the 2nd OT. If a 3rd OT is necessary, 5 on 5 with NO Goaltender. (Obviously a defenseman would get in the crease when the attack is on, but the special rules that apply to Goaltenders would not apply.)
I am completely against the idea of a shootout in the Stanley Cup playoffs (and opposed to shootouts during the regular season as well, but that's another story). The 1994 and 2006 World Cup final matches (soccer) were both decided by penalty kicks, and even though it was high drama, both times it has seemed an unfitting way to end the most important competition in the sport. Not every multiple-overtime Stanley Cup playoff game is a classic, but that's not the point. A multiple-overtime game can shape the character of the subsequent games or the rest of the series: a team can bounce back from a potentially demoralizing loss (for example, the Stars coming back to win 2-0 after losing a 4-overtime Game 1), or a team can use a win in multiple overtimes to go on a roll. It's a team sport; every game should be won by a team, not an individual shooter or goalie.
Obviously you're a hack writer who is just looking for a response. Good job, you got many about your shoot out idea.
The more the NHL becomes like international hockey, the better. The cure for bigger players/less space? The international ice width. The cure for 6 hour games? An exciting as heck shoot-out. Bring it on!
 |
Recent Posts
  |
||||
  |
|||||
Copyright © 2008 Time Inc.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.
