Red Wings' Ken Holland will push GMs for OT changes

Red Wings general manager Ken Holland, fresh off securing the services of elite defenseman Nicklas Lidstrom for another year, will be in Philadelphia today for meetings with his NHL colleagues.

While agenda topics will include head shots and how better to deal with them, Holland has his own topic he wants discussed.

“I’d like to see more games decided in overtime than shoot-out,” Holland said Tuesday. “I don’t mind the shoot-out, I just don’t want the shoot-out to decide so many games.”

As it stands now, if a game is undecided after regulation (60 minutes), a five-minute, sudden-death overtime of four-on-four commences after a one-minute rest period for the players. If the game is still undecided after overtime, the ice down the middle of the rink is cleared, and teams proceed to a shoot-out, which goes into sudden death after the third round.

“My suggestion is, extend OT from five minutes to eight minutes or from five minutes to 10 minutes,” Holland said. “Then maybe do we go half of it four-on-four, half of it three-on-three?

“I just want to have a conversation to see if other people feel like I do.”

Holland also will suggest that following regulation, there should be a dry-scrape of the ice, and that subsequently teams would segue directly from overtime into a shoot-out, without the middle of the ice being cleaned by a Zamboni.

The Wings went 6-9 in shoot-outs this season, 5-5 in overtimes. First-round opponent Phoenix piled up a league-high 14 victories from shoot-outs, while the Flyers — who are now in the Stanley Cup finals — famously made the playoffs by winning their last game of the season, 2-1, in a shoot-out.

9 Responses to Red Wings' Ken Holland will push GMs for OT changes

  1. Kev_Leafs says:

    I like the idea of 3pts for a regulation win; 2pts for an overtime win; 1pt for a shootout win.  Get rid of the 1pt for a loss in OT – it made some sense before there was a shootout, as it encourage teams to go for the win as opposed to play defense in OT just for both teams to end up with 1 pt as opposed to giving up 2pts to the other team.  But now, since there is a winner no matter what with the shootout: make teams play hard in regulation for the 3pt win, play hard for the 2pts in overtime, or else settle for the 1pt in the shootout win.

    Plus, there will be more leap-frogging in the standings towards the end of the year as the now standard 3 point games (2 for win + 1 for loss) would be replace by a more rewarding system based solely on wins; so down the stretch the scoreboard watching will be more exciting.

    Try that model with 5 minutes of 4-on-4 and the shootout, before extending OT with 3-on-3 and whatever.

  2. HABSSTAR says:

    Geee Kenny, why don't we do a full period of overtime and every five minutes take a player off the ice until it turns into the shootout!!!

    I really don't care how they settle the games after 60 mins all I knowthe losing team shouldn't be getting a point in any cir*****stance. 

    2 points for a win, any win any how.  0 points for a loss. 

  3. leafy says:

    The solution is obvious. Get rid of the goddamn shootout.

  4. leafy says:

    I'm with you Habsstar. 0 points for a loss.  OT was so much more exciting 10 years ago compared to now.  The extra point has taken the drama out of losing. What's the friggin point of sports without drama?

  5. wingsnation21 says:

    I agree. what more is there to say

  6. HABSSTAR says:

    What I think that point does is it clouds up the water a lot and keeps teams in the playoff hunt much longer than they would be if they didn't get the loser point.  This is something the NHL wants because there are some teams who if they were out of the playoff race by Jan would probably be folded by Feb as fans would stop showing up. 

    It gives people the idea that a team is perhaps much better than it actually is. 

  7. Kev_Leafs says:

    That's why I think it's stupid.  A team could lose every single game in the regular season and finish with 82 points.  Explain that to a baseball/basketball/football fan.

    If a team gives up the go-ahead goal at 59:45, then they lose; but if a team gives it up at 60:15, then they get a point – in those thirty seconds they half-won the game?  Ridiculous.

    The NHL doesn't want ties because baseball/basketball/football don't have them, that's why they feel the need for the shootout.  I just don't think a win in the shootout should be worth as much as a win in regulation or it OT.  The shootout is a little game – like mini-putt – at the end of a hockey game.

    This year Boston won 25 games in regulation but had 10 shootout wins.  The Rangers won 34 regulation games with 3 shootout wins.  You're telling me Boston deserved to be in the playoffs over the Rangers who played a better team game all year?

    How about 2pts for the win but only 1pt for a win in the shootout?  No points for losing.

    GMs don't want to vote against keeping the 1 point for the loss because they worry that they're team might lose out on the playoffs as a result.  They will always be self-serving; not for the betterment of the game.

  8. HABSSTAR says:

    Well to be honest my full opinion is there should be about 50 games a season and they should play one period after another until someone walks away the winner.  2 pts for a win, 0 for a loss.   This however is NEVER going to happen!

    I'm not opposed to the shootout as I realy hate tied games.  I can't explain it, I just hate them.  Maybe the NHL needs to go the stick route instead of the carrot route on this and if a game has to go to a shoot out to decide a winner then neither teams gets points.  You get a W or an L but no points what-so-ever, therefore putting A LOT of emphasis on winning early and often. lol

    I'm half joking about it but seriously could you imagine games 70-82 for any team trying to make the playoffs and they have 5 mins of overtime to salvage points from a tie game or it's as good as a loss?  God I bet we'd see some of the craziest hockey in the world during those games. 

  9. HABSSTAR says:

    See my reply to Kev_Leafs just above.  It's a bit draconian but it might work.

Leave a Reply