Again, is the person who is stopping you from doing that the same person every game or is it a different person for each different game? Do they come over to your house before the game starts, just in case, or do they wait until regulation time ends to show up?
OT: great hockey
- Thread starter Fk_Pitt
- Start date
Again, is the person who is stopping you from doing that the same person every game or is it a different person for each different game? Do they come over to your house before the game starts, just in case, or do they wait until regulation time ends to show up?
You're just being stupid. it's a preference, I prefer 3 on 3 OT for multiple reasons, ending the game sooner being one of them.
We just discussed this for the NZ national leagues. The main reason for 5 minutes 3v3 OT then shootout is to get the game over with. Obviously this isn't a problem for the NHL, but here the ice booking ends and something else is on the ice after the game. But the point was raised about why postseason hockey should have different rules than the regular season.
I do think the 3v3 is incredibly exciting hockey at all levels.
I agree, and it's better for everyone. NFL complains they need to shorten OT to "avoid injuries" but it's OK to have hockey players stumbling around in the 7th period at 3am exhausted?
So it's stupid to point out that you're being stupid?
If staying up past 10:00 is such a chore for you then go to bed. No one is stopping you. Record the rest of the game and watch it in the morning. But the idea that they should change the way that a game is played so that once every few years you don't have to stay up past your bed time is dumb.
But par for the course for someone who thinks that the world revolves around them.
YOU ARE STUPID because you are advocating that ONCE THE PLAYOFFS START at that point, THEY CHANGE THE WAY THE GAME IS PLAYED for the whole season, 82 games from October to April.
In the entire history of the NHL, the overtime rule for the Stanley Cup Playoffs has always been different then the rules for overtime in the regular season .... it NEVER has been the same ! .....
I respect your opinion that the rules for OT in the Playoffs should be changed but the results of the Survey that I posted previously in this thread show that nearly 90% of hockey fans don't want any change in the Stanley Cup Playoff OT rules, so your opinion is that of a very small minority of fans ..... it may change with time and more fans may agree with you in the future but for now your opinion is an outlier and not what the vast majority of fans want.
Last edited:
One thing that can help open things up a bit is widening the rink 4-5 feet and length 6-8 feet. Not Olympic size; just a bit with how big players are now. Three of my dreams for a better game:
1. 7:30 min OT 3 on 3 in reg season, no shootout and a tie if it ends in tie (won’t happen much).
2. No more fight instigator and misconduct. It’d get Marchand type behavior out of league and lessen shots/injuries on stars.
3. Contract to 24 teams (it’ll never happen). Most teams 3-4 lines are AHL types that water down the league. 4 divisions of 6 teams; perfect.
1. 7:30 min OT 3 on 3 in reg season, no shootout and a tie if it ends in tie (won’t happen much).
2. No more fight instigator and misconduct. It’d get Marchand type behavior out of league and lessen shots/injuries on stars.
3. Contract to 24 teams (it’ll never happen). Most teams 3-4 lines are AHL types that water down the league. 4 divisions of 6 teams; perfect.
Interesting
1) I am okay with the OT in reg season and playoffs. I am not faulting your logic, I just think it is fun in the regular season and an absolutely exquisite endeavor of pure torture come playoffs. Nothing more nerve wracking than NHL OT playoffs.
2) I absolutely agree. This protects cheap shot artists.
3) Rink Size? See I don't necessarily agree that a bigger rink makes a more open game. Olympic or other International scores aren't appreciably different than NHL scores. A bigger rink makes it easier to push play on the perimeter. More neutral zone play which is boring.
4) No. No need to contract but god please no more expansion. With the best Russians, Czechs, and former Soviet bloc country players playing here, and the expansion of talent in other countries including the US, it is fine.
YOU ARE STUPID because you clearly don't understand WHY the rules are different in the playoffs. If it was possible to play every game to a winner in the regular season you had better believe that they would. But it's not. As anyone who has even a 12 year old's understanding of the game knows.
I agree with rink size not going full Euro due to those leagues having issues with scoring and pushing the play to the perimeter etc. Has to be some balance to open it up just a touch. Owners will never ok it though cuz it’ll eliminate 2 rows of prime seats.
How do you figure, pushing it back 2 rows would increase the number of seats you can call prime, and in the pricing, you're eliminating the 2 cheapest rows at the top.
It isn't really true, because most rinks consist of levels and each level has a predetermined number of rows in it. Eliminating two rows of prime level seats in the lowest level doesn't make seats in a higher level worth more money. If teams thought that they could charge more for the top two rows in the arena they would do that, irregardless of how many rows are in the lowest arena level.
You have to really not understand how they price seats at sporting events and concerts and the like to think that removing the first two rows of seating is functionally the same thing as removing the two rows from the top of the building.
It is all unrealistic anyway as the refrigeration system won't be built in to cover those areas. All of the refrigerant piping would need redone. These rinks will be concrete base. Major project to expand the ice surface.
Just because you say it's true that doesn't make it so.
The lower level at PPG has approximately (depending on the section) 25 rows in it. If you knock out the first two rows there are now only 23 rows in the lower level. In the club sections for example those seats sell for well over $200 each. In your world, somehow now the first two rows in the upper level at center ice will no longer sell for $99 a ticket, they will sell for $240 a ticket, simple because they removed the first two rows. A seat in the last row of the end zone sells for $148. In your world the seats in the first two rows of the upper level that now sell for $70 will all the sudden sell for $148 simply because they removed the first two rows.
That doesn't make sense anywhere other than the alternate reality that you live in.
Just because you say what you said above that doesn't make it so. So again you're wrong. Just your BS, whatever I say you need to follow me around and be a contrarian, and you're never right. Your comment doesn't even make sense in any way.
If my comment doesn't make any sense to you that's simply you admitting that you can't understand concepts simple enough for a middle schooler to get.
I never mentioned how much the last row would cost, it could stay what it is now. That wasn't the conversation, take out the 1st two rows and the 3rd and 4th rows can cost what the 1st two did before they where removed, THAT'S THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION, THE END. the extra CRAP you brought into it are irrelevant. You don't have to change any pricing beyond that.
That rule was put in place because teams were intentionally dumping the puck into the stands to stop play. It's a necessary rule.
I always thought soccer should have an "no offside" area. Not sure how you do that. Maybe make the goals bigger?
Man never played defense on a hockey team before. I'd do it every time I was in trouble if it wasn't a penalty.
Once again, if it was that easy to charge more money teams would already be doing it.
Unless you think that sports team owners don't like money. Then I could see how your point make sense.
Yeah I know. But it is fairly obvious when it is intentional. That effects play a whole lot less than the chopping of the stick to the head or back or other interference penalties which are "subjective" for referees.
Again, erasing 2 rows and making up the difference is doable, IMO. I guess in your opinion it isn't? What's YOUR PROOF that I'm wrong? PROOF? These teams raise ticket prices a few sections here and there all the time, and most people renew. I used to have access to Steelers seats that where like $75 in Heinz Field, now the same seats are like $125, over time, incrementally they raise them.
ONCE AGAIN, here he is, I made a comment and Little Joey needs to rush in and be a contrarian
You're probably right but the fact that they make terrible officiating decisions with other rules doesn't really help the argument.
