Shootout not all it's cracked up to be. NHL FORGOT ABOUT THE OLD FANS.

“The Shootout will save hockey.” Words from so many NHL people around the league have all said the same thing. NHL is featuring the shootout during the end of every pre-season game to get the fans going….

But as I watch it… the truth is… it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.

Note to NHL: Bring back the hockey we all loved to watch.First of all I have to start by saying I loved the idea of the shootout when it was first brought up. But after watching it a few times… I really kind of don’t like it.

A few things should be done if they are going to keep it around.

First, and most important…… if your taking the tie’s out of hockey that’s fine. But to only have a win lose column is going to drive some fans off the walls.

There should be 3 columns 2 points for a win 0 points for a lose and 1 point if you make it to the shootout and lose. Marked as an Overtime Lose (OTL). A shootout was never a part of hockey. How does it now all of a sudden decide the whole game?

Second, instead of 3 players on each team shooting it should be 5 players shooting. It shouldn’t be 3 goal scorers winning you a game. It should be more of a team thing. And since most teams can find 3 goal scores, and not 5 it would make it more of a all around team win with 5 players shooting.

My reasoning is this. NHL hockey games have never been based on 3 players winning you a game if the game is tied. If you don’t agree just wait till you see fluke wins from teams like Washington over a team like Toronto and Toronto a playoff type team loses 2 points because a rare goalie was on a hot streak or having good luck against 3 players on Toronto, so now Toronto get’s no points?

If your a hockey fan (a real one) and you think 3 players on each team should decide who get’s 2 point and who get’s none when the game is tied… then your a fake. Making it past OT should get you a point like it always had. The Shootout is more fun that way. Players can do more moves and the fans don’t go home due to 3 players deciding the end of the game and there team not even getting a point because of a new rule…… “the Shootout.” Which again.. was never a part of hockey.

Us real fans never asked the NHL to change the game we loved to watch. Bringing in the new fans is fine with me… but how do you forget the old ones? To me.. all the moves to change hockey don’t make me love the game any more then I already did…. if anything I’m sitting back watching the shootouts like…. “bring back the old game I loved….. Now that was hockey.”

(I decided to write this after watching my team, NY Rangers beat Boston in a shootout. So this is not to save my team from losing. This is for the real hockey fan.)

28 Responses to Shootout not all it's cracked up to be. NHL FORGOT ABOUT THE OLD FANS.

  1. BloodyKnuckles says:

    Relax my man. You don’t have the info correct.

    Each team is awarded a point after the regulation tie.The overtime & shootout is just a battle for the extra point.The shootout goals will not be recorded as stats for the shooter or a goal against for the goalie.

    The standing will have the three columns.

    Wins , Losses and Overtime Losses.Overtime losses will include both being scored on in overtime or losing the shootout.wins=2pts overtime loss=1pt loss=0pts.

    3 skaters works for me.It puts a lot of pressue on each shot/save.Every team should have a chance to win after being tied after 65 minutes.If the shootout is tied no player is alowwed to shoot a second time untill all dressed players have shot.

    So this will reward teams with a deep bench.

    You can’t just have the same three shooters taking multpile tries.

    I love the end of ties.I can not stand spending a couple of hundred dollars on tickets and not having a decided outcome.Ties once were not so bad , but then it started to seem like a lot of teams would just play for the tie when they were tied.The shootout will end the tie which is good.In a perfect world I would have them play sudden death till someone scored.

    I would also like to see them do away with the 1 point for overtime loss. I guess the fear is that teams would then play defensivly to get to the shootout.

  2. N25philly says:

    Shootouts are a stupid idea that take the team aspect out of the sport that is the most team based. If they wanted to do this right they would take out all back to back games and have them play until someone scores like in the playoffs.

  3. TMLsundin says:

    The guy obviously has no idea what he’s talking about. Thanks for clearing it up.

  4. BloodyKnuckles says:

    agree. and ties are just as stupid.

    If basketball can go into 2nd and third overtimes for regular season games, why can’t hockey?

    I think eliminating ties is a step in the right direction. Hopefully it one day evolves into sudden death.

  5. skinny13 says:

    yea i hate shootouts, they ruin the game, i say countnious overtime till someone wins just like in baseball, now that would lead to an exciting game

  6. UWSensFan says:

    I understand a couple of the points made, but there are some other points that are not made that I’d also like to see changed: namely, the NHL and the IIHF should have been working closer together from the start. Think about this: this year’s NHL will feature the following changes that the IIHF is NOT featuring:

    -reduced goalie equipment

    -stiffer obstruction rules

    -limited goalie handling area (i.e. behind the net)

    -stricter penalties for slowing down the game (i.e. intentional icing means no line change, goalies freezing the puck miles from the net results in delay of game penalty, etc).

    Shootouts are one of the few things they still have in common. Granted, I think that 3 players per team is less ideal than 5.

    As far as points go, this can stem back to the days of the introduction of the overtime loss (OTL). When this was introduced, a single game COULD potentially be worth 3 points (2 for the OT winner and 1 for the OT loser). This skewed statistics from previous years, as you would have to subtract the OTL column to figure out exactly how many points a team had actually gotten (in the older “OLD NHL”) with respect to records. My take on it then (as it is now), is that if they want to make SOME games worth 3 points, they have to find a way to make ALL games worth 3 points. With the introduction of the shootout, there is now a way for them to do this:

    Regulation win: 3 points

    Regulation loss: 0 points

    OT win (shootout or actual OT): 2 points

    OT loss (shootout or actual OT): 1 point

    This would give teams a true incentive to break a tie before overtime, because it’d be worth at least one extra point (i.e. you CAN get 3 points in regulation, but in OT, you are not even guaranteed the second point).

    I’ve talked to some friends about this, and some liked it, whereas others didn’t. I just think it would make a large difference in the way teams looked at close games towards the end of the 3rd period, as I can think of very few teams that would not want to gain 3 points (as opposed to going for at most 2).

  7. shifterdarkwolf says:

    It is pretty rough for you to say that anyone who likes shootouts is “a fake”. Calm down a wee bit. Sure, shootouts do focus on the individuality of players as opposed to team play, there is no way to get around that fact. But there is nothing worse, in my opinion, than paying $50 for a hockey ticket, or even plopping on the couch and watching the game for 3 hours to just see it end in a tie. Ties are just a downer. I don’t think shootouts will ruin the game. If the teams have played for 65 minutes and can’t break up the tie, I think it is time for each team to let their star players — be it great scorers or a solid goalie — take up the torch and seal the deal. There are no points lost for losing a shootout, there is only something to be gained if you do win the shootout. If you don’t like the shootouts, imagine that they never happened and your team that would have gotten a tie and only 1 point last year still only got that 1 point, even if they lose the shootout.

  8. beefer says:

    I’ve been saying the same thing to my friends, ever since they instituted the 1 point for an overtime loss.

  9. canadaownshockey says:

    First, and most important…… if your taking the tie’s out of hockey that’s fine. But to only have a win lose column is going to drive some fans off the walls.

    There should be 3 columns 2 points for a win 0 points for a lose and 1 point if you make it to the shootout and lose. Marked as an Overtime Lose (OTL). A shootout was never a part of hockey. How does it now all of a sudden decide the whole game?

    that’s how it is man, the team gets 1 point for making it to the shootout. Man read up about the game and educate yourself, before you go on a rant.

  10. Elcabongo5684 says:

    While all in all not a bad idea to have sudden death in regular season, you have to think of the fatigue it would bring to the players in the game. Look at how many teams in the past tied 3 games in a row. already thats 3 games plus an extra 15 minutes. Would you really want you team to play 3 game of sudden death hockey where it could go more than just one overtime. Its a lot of wear and tear on players. I can see maybe one 20 minute over, but that is still a lot of fatigue for a team that is in the situation to tie a lot.

  11. Elcabongo5684 says:

    That would be an interesting idea, the whole incentive factor would force the teams to play harder and possibly make the game more enjoyable for fans.

  12. scotty2hotty says:

    Chill out man. Perhaps a bad comparison … but soccer’s World Cup uses a shoot out format, even in the playoff/knock-out stages. I figure, if (arguably) the most important single sporting event on the planet decides shootouts are an acceptable way of deciding a tie game, then we should just sit back and enjoy in our regular season games.

  13. BloodyKnuckles says:

    I see your point, and I beleive the fatigue and travel are the reason we do not see sudden death.

    In my oppinion , I think the exsistence of ties contributed to number of ties.The fact in a tie game in the 3rd perios I team could play to protect the one point by tieing and then try to get the second point in overtime.

    If it was a suddendeath , I think you would see more teams going balls to the wall in the third period, taking chances trying to end the game then.

    I think if there wasn’t a reward for having the game go to OT, that there would be a lot less of them.

    Like suggested earlier inthe thread if they remove back to back games you could limit fatigue/travel.

    Another idea would be a 20 minute overtime.If noone scores it goes to a shootout and only the team that wins the shootout only gets 1 point.The losing team gets nothing.This would never happen though.

  14. habswinthecup-again says:

    I have never liked and never will like the shootout, it is a terrible way to decide a hockey game. To play hard for 60 minutes and then lose the game on a shootout is terrible( no matter how exciting they think it is), they should have changed the OT to 10 minutes at 4 skaters aside(which would have gotten rid of 90% of the ties) and it would have been just as exciting.

  15. habswinthecup-again says:

    They use a shootout because that sport can go 5 games without even scoring a goal.

  16. FLAMESOWNU says:

    Agreed…I think he’s the “fake”

  17. rojoke says:

    The math may be different but the system stays the same. Right now, there’s two types of losses. Under the 3-2-1-0 system, there two types of losses and two types of wins. The introduction of the single point for the OT loss has done little to nothing to reduce the number of tie games being played. What makes you think adding a point for winning in 60 minutes will do it?

    If you look at post game interviews, players will more often than not be talking about the point that got away, or how they were lucky to steal a point at the end. Teams don’t play to win games anymore, they seemingly play to collect points for the team. As long as we don’t lose in regulation, we can have some degree of success. And all you have to do look at the overtime record from 2003-04. Seven teams won two or less games in overtime. Of those teams, Minnesota played and Washington only won once. Minnesota played 24 overtime games in 03-04 and only managed to win one game? St. Louis played the same number of games in OT, and they managed to win 11 of them. The Blues and Vancouver were the only two teams two win as many games as they tied after overtime. And Pittsburgh went 7-4-8 in OT, third best in the league. And this was a team that finished last in the standings.

    If you want to change the mindset of NHL coaches and players, then a change to the current points system is necessary. But don’t add more points for winning in regulation. Scrap the points system altogether, A win is a win, a loss is a loss. If you want ties, fine. If you don’t, fine. Teams aren’t trying to win anymore. They’re trying not to lose.

  18. flyersfan_92 says:

    i like the shootout it’s funa and exiting, listen it is skill against skill, if your goalie isn’t good at shootouts you are in trouble, if you socrers arent good at shooouts you are in trouble.

    i have always hated a tie, the most boring aspect of hockey for me, this is a way to end that without killing the players, if we had them play till a winner was chosen, who knows how many 3 and 4 overtime games there would be, you would have more injuries, and more players missing games, how exiting would that be in the end?

    I think this will cause teams to be more aggressive in OT , not the opposite.

    and in the end, skill wins most games, so this is just another skill aspect of the game, and exiting to boot, how fun was it for me to watch the shootout after last nights flyers game (which they won in 3 periods) to see Gagne and Mike richards deke the pants off of Ari Ahonen.

  19. Air33 says:

    Shootouts are awsome. It adds a new dimension to the game.

    And to be upset at the actual shootout that your team loses it rediculous since both teams have an equal chance at winning it. It still measures the skill of a team but on a different level.

    If the game was decided in a coin toss then you would have reason to be upset.

  20. detY192003 says:

    I hear ya, but they are just trying to get any fan base. Also to note, these new rules were developed by old timers ( Brandon Shannahan was the chairman I believe) and hes and old school player. So evidently there is more to it then what we know or can imagine. Secondly I dont see these rules staying for too long. Prolly if the NHL can make it to the next CBA the rules will be dropped

  21. garyroberts7 says:

    Does anyone know if there doing this in the playoffs, because for the Stanley Cup to be decided on a penalty shot would just be stupid.

  22. BloodyKnuckles says:

    no , playoffs are just as the always have been.

    5 on 5 sudden death, play till someone scores.

  23. oldfan says:

    short and sweet. Let’s not forget about the orginal hockey fan. The ones that watched hockey grow from what it was to what it has become. The ones that played it as a kid and just for the fun of it. The ones that had children and taught them how the game was meant to be played. I say what was wrong with the game the way it was. we seemed to be trying hard to make new rules when actually the rules have always been there.

    How about we stop trying to change the game and just have fun playing and watching it like we used to.

  24. garyroberts7 says:

    ok good.

    Thanks, GaryRoberts7

  25. garyroberts7 says:

    Yeah, I really like that idea better.

  26. wheresthesoda says:

    good points, agree on most of them, but i actually enjoy the shootout.

    and i think they said the shootout after every game so the players can get used to it, because in the regular season theres a possibility that teams wont have a shootout a month into the season.

    but great points in the article, agreed

  27. Kamakaze says:

    I don’t mind the shootout so much, that is if it helps bring fans in to watch the game. However, I think it needs tweaking.

    That means making a 5 man rotation, and re-working the point system.

    I don’t think all “wins” are equal. There should be 3 points for a Regulation Win, 2 points for an OT win, and 1 point for a SO win.

    That makes SURE teams will play harder late in the game to get that goal, and not sit on a lead or tie to play for OT or a SO. That would bring scoring up (as teams trying to get a goal late in the game will either get it, or give one up), eliminate ties, create a TON of excitement (from fans hoping their team gets all 3 points), and still create an emphasis on team wins, while still rewarding individual effort to some degree.

    I really haven’t heard a better way to do it, or any reason not to… anyone?

  28. kazooDevlis says:

    I tihnk a more elegant way than the shootout (which I can’t stand) would be a revamp of the point system.

    win=2 points

    tie=1 point for each team

    loss (even in OT) =0 points

    basically if you lose you get nothing. doesn’t matter if you made a game of it and went to OT. You lost. Nothing, nada, zero zilch.

    Or maybe a modification of your idea where a regulation win is 3 points, and OT win is 2 points and a tiew is 1 point each, and a loss (even in OT) would be 0. essentially the disparity between teams who could win in regulation versus teams that play for the tie *cough*minnesota*cough* would be so great teams would be forced to play harder ion regulation in order to keep up points-wise.

    maybe another alternative to the shootout would be to have an enforcer boxing match! hey! that’s exciting and is just as non-team-centric as a shootout!

Leave a Reply