In respose to the Vancouver Loss on the SO and CB's article on the Spin-O-Rama yesterday I thought I revisit my feelings on how to deal with the OT/SO/Points situation.

These shootout deals are tough to deal with.....Although I will say that even though we don't like it...I am actually in the camp that feels the games do need to have a winner...I HATE TIES...SO I THINK SHOOTOUT ARE OK IN THAT SENSE....JUST TRY WHATEVER THEY CAN TO MAKE SHOOTOUTS AS RARE AS POSSIBLE

However, a shootout win should count less than a Regulation or OT win.

I put out a Fan Post just after the NHL held their RDO Camp this summer and I was thrilled with some o the ideas they discussed there.....what I liked after the Jump!

Before I begin, let me preface this by saying that I thought the NHL did a very Good Thing by lessening the value of SO wins vs. Regulation/OT wins.  This was a great decision by the league.

At RDO Camp some of the following ideas were discussed and tried out

1.  Extending the length of OT....maybe extend to about 8-10 minutes of 4 v. 4 instead of just 5 minutes.  The idea of changing to 3 v. 3 and even 2 v. 2 was a terrible idea though (I hated that)

2.  Also, (And This is a Biggie).....make the teams switch sides for OT.  The League said that they had done some research on scoring and found a significant difference in scoring in 2nd periods due to the fact that the bench is further away from the respective defensive zones and exposes teams just a little more often.  With a longer change and 4 v. 4, I think the scoring chances would increase significantly enough to decrease the need for shootouts.

3.  Loser Points - No Loser Points for losing in OT (only if you lose in a shootout) - This may open up a different can of worms I know (because then teams will just play ultra-conservativatively in OT to preserve at least the loser point..... but doesn't that happen already in Regulation?- Good Discussion).  Maybe No Loser Points for OT losses only in games against teams in the opposite conference?

If a Shootout is still necessary:

1.  I heard John Tortorella say recently that he would like it if the coaches did not have to submit all 3 of their shootout participants right away...he said he would like to be able to pick out his participants after each round (I like that....that sounds interesting) 

2.  In the AHL...they have 5 rounds instead of 3 rounds in the shootout (Anybody like that idea?)....might be interesting.

In any case...I think that if the NHL would implement the top 2 items above (Extended OT and Changing Sides in OT)...there would really be a decrease in shootouts which is what I think the Goal Is....

Lets Discuss

<em>Submitted FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog or SB Nation. If you're reading this statement, you pass the fine print legalese test. Four stars for you.</em>

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Lighthouse Hockey

You must be a member of Lighthouse Hockey to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Lighthouse Hockey. You should read them.

Join Lighthouse Hockey

You must be a member of Lighthouse Hockey to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Lighthouse Hockey. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.