Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues
posted at 9/13/2013 9:09 AM EDT
The whole problem with most of these other great suggestions, is they fail to consider the leagues biggest issue, when they originally tried to come up with the concept of a reg season winner.
The monotony and compression of the regular season has teams on a tight schedule. When the whole 4 on 4, shootout system came in...it was only decided upon, because it could be fitted in, in about 1/2 hour usually. On average, teams only have "minutes" per night....not "hours" in which to get the games in.
To me, nothing worse than overtime, and still no winner. I also agree with the league, that at the end of the night...someone should be the winner. It's pretty much impossible to figure out how much time is involved in any kind of overtime result, so we're left with some kind of gimmickry, if a winner is to be crowned. 3 on 3, is a gimmick too, and one I don't think is too well suited to the current Bruins.
Although the single point thing is a reasonable pet peeve, I'm ok with that too. Any of these gimmicks create a competitive challenge, and there's a cause/effect scenario to be considered. 2 pts for an overall win, and zero to the other team, will have serious consequences to the standings, therefore the overall game. A shootout specialist or 2(see TS) would become much more integral to icing a successful team. Same with 3 on 3. If it's 2 pts vs none, it would seem to me, the overall benefit of being built on defense first....would be somewhat compromised. I'm too lazy to figure this out, but I'm projecting around 15 games out of 82, end up tied after 60 minutes. Imagine the difference in points, therefore the shakeup in playoff teams, if the league went 3 on 3, and the winner gets all the points.
Just my opinion, but no thanks. When looking at all the options, I'm not that unhappy with the way it is.