Sunday, November 7, 2010

Thoughts to improve overtime

Darren Dreger is now discussing the topics that the GMs will discuss at the annual meetings, so I find it appropriate to chip in a few thoughts.

The overtime debate has been beaten to death. The fact of the matter is that the shootout is bad for the game. It is nothing more than a gimmick to get airtime on ESPN, which while it makes sense from a marketing standpoint, is contrary to the idea of growing the sport. So how do we change it?

What about eliminating the shootout altogether, and only awarding points for winning games? Two points for a regulation win, one for an overtime win, and none otherwise. I bet we'd see some offense in OT then.

I love the idea of a long line change, but at the same time, this helps the defense in the event of a power play - Gary Bettman's favorite portion of a hockey game. What about something drastic, such as only allowing the attacking team change lines during stoppages? Obviously this would only apply during in-zone faceoffs. Or something as subtle as starting overtime in the same zone that regulation ended in?

What do you think?


  1. I can understand that they can't play a full 20 minutes in OT but why make it more complicated than it needs to be? 5 or 10 minutes sudden death OT then the game is over. 2 points for a win regardless of when it comes, 1 points each for the 65/70 min draw!

    Nice blog /Random swedish FC-member

  2. The NHL will not go back to the old method of a one-point tie, that much is apparent. But the shootout needs to go, and I think this represents a significant incentive to play some north-south offense.

    Thanks for the support! If you have a google account, you can follow my blog by clicking "Follow" on the right.