- Joined
- Aug 30, 2018
- Messages
- 26,609
- Reaction score
- 22,324
- Location
- Yukon Territory, Canada
- Handicap
- 9.2
It sure seems that way! ...and the fourth and fifth... except for the one Toronto got for retaining some of Lehner’s salary.
The Official 2019 - 2020 NHL and Everything Hockey Thread
Need to cut down on the rum Dan. Only sport that goes from a competitive contest to a gimmick to reach a quick end. Imagine if the NBA went to 3on3 for OT, or MLB used only 1 outfielder in extra innings.
I'd be happy with 4on4 for 10 minutes and then everyone goes home with 1 point (back to the way that was not broken).
OITW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2013
- Messages
- 50,264
- Reaction score
- 16,848
Yup sounds like Bob Murray
Unfortunately no.
Sounds like we get a winner lol
He's quick and has a good wrist shot. Just doesn't do anything real consistently.
OITW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2013
- Messages
- 50,264
- Reaction score
- 16,848
Eh, no more than most young guys..some though haha
- Moderator
- #1,757
Opens the entire ice up. Speeds everything up. Scoring chances galore.
I'd accept 4on4 as well.
I would love if the NBA went to 3 on 3 for OT. And the MLB example is a bit harsh, that would be like removing the goalie and making a regular player stand in net
I think baseball just needs to end after 6 innings in general and cork every bat.
4 on 4 makes you actually play hockey. Right now teams skate in circles until other team gets tired. Or a blocked shot or turnover leads to an immediate breakaway goal.
4on4 for 10 min. then it's a tie. No lame point for just getting to OT. Effing participation ribbon. Win you get 2 tie both get 1.
- Moderator
- #1,760
Give me 5 minutes of 4on4 and then 10 minutes of 3on3.
Or 60 minutes of 4v4 hahaha
Northerner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,706
- Reaction score
- 881
I would love if the NBA went to 3 on 3 for OT. And the MLB example is a bit harsh, that would be like removing the goalie and making a regular player stand in net
That's basically that ******** Big3 basketball League.
Did you just argue against the OT point, and then give them both points anyway? Why is it only a point each if they can't score after OT...isn't that a true participation trophy for both teams being lame and un-earning the point?
Except...it's full NBA talent just going 3 on 3. Other than they are both playing 3 on 3 basketball, that's basically where the similarities would end.
Nope winner gets 2 points. Loser get nothing. No shootout after 10 min of 4on4 just 1pt for the tie. Just like it was before the NHL thought they had to mess with it.
Right, so both teams would still get participation points for ending the game 0-0 due to both sucking. I'm not sure I can agree that in that case it's better for both of those teams so semi-prosper vs just getting to OT in general.
I understand why the league changed things up. The NHL had become a boring dump and chase neutral zone trap slogfest. Much more speed and skill today makes the 5 on 5 play much more fun to watch.
Still not getting it. Right now the LOSER of OT gets a point for LOSING. What other sport can you lose a game and gain in the standings?
Right....but in the old way, going 0-0, did either team really win and deserve anything either? If you said a tie after OT got you nothing, then that's fine. But the participation trophy example of why it's wrong now doesn't stack up when 0-0 would have gotten both teams points before, the same as if they put a bunch of blind donkeys on the ice.
Two points available for every game. Win you get both. Tie you split it. When a loser get points that is the "participation point".
My cynical side thinks it is because CBJ leads the league in participation points with 14 is why you disagree.
Maybe this year. Typically they are awful at getting it. We did miss out on 3rd place last year due to them though because whoever got third (Islanders, canes?...whoever it was) had like twice as many. So I don't really care one way or the other. I do however like the 3 v 3, and I think giving 1 for just getting to OT was a reaction to not piss too many teams off by having both points decided by 3v3 at the same time.Two points available for every game. Win you get both. Tie you split it. When a loser get points that is the "participation point".
My cynical side thinks it is because CBJ leads the league in participation points with 14 is why you disagree.
Actually I was surprised to just learn the loser point began way back in 1999. Shootout started in '05. 3on3 in '16.
Interesting. To be fair though, I'm only used to the CBJ getting any sort of points for about 3-4 seasons now haha.
I'll admit that I hate the current OT because somehow the Avs absolutely suck at it. They have trouble defending it and are bad at faceoffs. Bad combo.