Is the End of Stanley Cup Playoff OT Near?

[DarkStar50 679]

Hard to believe but it might be closer than you could have ever imagined!

Read on............

http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/...time-in-danger/

[Chadd 916]

It's only a matter of time. TV partners want a nice little package that fits the programming schedule. They really don't care what the package is, they just want it to fit.

[chippa13 1844]

I wouldn't be against paring it down to 4 on 4 for the second OT. As far as taking the leap to a shootout in the playoffs, I don't see that happening.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

4 on 4 after the 1st OT is cool with me. I find it more exciting than 5 on 5 anyway. More room for OV and Semin to work their magic. But if there is ever shootouts in the playoffs, i wont watch another game.

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

OT 5-5 is the way is should be. Winning a game in numerous OTs is a badge of honor and shows who wants it more...if they switch to 4 on 4 after the 1st OT then I will never watch another hockey game again...

[DarkStar50 679]

^^ + 1, unless there are coincidental penalties, 4 on 4 is booshit hockey.

[hockeymom 2]

From the article...

the N.H.L.’s Competition Committee was apparently one vote away “in the last year or so” from recommending a change in Stanley Cup play.

Recommending a change doesn't mean it would get implemented... just that an idea would go forward to the actual decision makers for consideration.

[Law Goalie 147]

TV seems to manage just fine with 13-inning baseball games.

Honestly, I would rather see the NHL move to a 72' Series format (8 games, straight 60min win-loss-tie, no OT/shootout) and only have overtime in the deciding game if and as necessary. If they did that, the owners would effectively get an extra ticket-date instead of the horrible specter of 'free hockey'. By default, every series would be five games minimum, with 4 wins + 1 win/tie being the clinch. The only real problem this creates is the possibly of a scoreless draw being a win-condition for a series, which might make for the most boring hockey game ever played.

I don't know what the mathematics would be if the rules only allowed OT in a binary (win/loss) elimination game, but that seems like a better way to go than completely changing the nature of how the game itself is decided.

If you want 4v4, hell, why not make it like college football and put the teams on alternating powerplays until someone scores and the other team doesn't reply?

[chippa13 1844]

I don't like that '72 format. It would have teams playing not to lose rather than to win.

[Law Goalie 147]

Better than settling it with rock-paper-scissors.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand it's tradition to go 5 on 5 golden goal, on the other it would be nice to see hockey get more TV exposure in the US. That's not going to happen when you have programmers that have to accept the game might run several OT periods. Equally, I tend to think you see a drop off in the quality of hockey when you have a game in a series where there's extended OT.

[lotus 2]

leave 4 on 4 and shootouts to inline hockey. Maybe next we should turn extra innings in baseball into a home run derby to decide the winner.

[Ahriman 1]

I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand it's tradition to go 5 on 5 golden goal, on the other it would be nice to see hockey get more TV exposure in the US. That's not going to happen when you have programmers that have to accept the game might run several OT periods. Equally, I tend to think you see a drop off in the quality of hockey when you have a game in a series where there's extended OT.

Oh eff that. Every professional sport has some tie game mechanic that extends play. Hockey, Baseball and basketball all do not change the rules of play for the extended game. No station rep or programmer is gonna suggest the MLB or NBA change their game. And you best believe the quality of the pitching in the 14th inning has gone down so why complain about hockey having tired skaters? While in basketball its assured the last 40 seconds of regulation and EVERY OT period will be dragged out for more time than you could imagine, at least in hockey the clock can't be significantly without consequences.

[phunky_monkey 6]

OT is the most exciting part of the playoffs, and one of the things that makes it so much fun to watch.

Leave the shootouts and 4 on 4 out of it in my opinion.

[RadioGaGa 162]

I could live with a 4 on 4 OT in the PO...But if they EVER award the Cup on Penalty Shots....I better be in the ground already.

[DCott 0]

Any soccer fans in here? I ask because I would like to see how guys feel when a championship game is decided by penalty kicks, like last year Chelsea v. Manchester.

[Law Goalie 147]

Rubbish, and I'm not a fan of the away-goal calculation either.

[Penguinsfanatic 0]

I'm just reiterating what has been stated on here. OT in the playoffs is the most exciting thing to watch, what gets people excited or have their heart skip a beat because a bouncing puck goes through the crease I know mine does.

Playing 5-5 OT is the way it should always be 4-4 would keep people fresh and probably have games end more quickly, but 5-5 shows who wants it more, it shows who wont make those simple mistakes or who just has the will to keep going even though statistically they should be losing ie. Anaheim this year only getting 46 shots on net while Hiller faced 62 from the Wings..5-5 is the only way to go.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand it's tradition to go 5 on 5 golden goal, on the other it would be nice to see hockey get more TV exposure in the US. That's not going to happen when you have programmers that have to accept the game might run several OT periods. Equally, I tend to think you see a drop off in the quality of hockey when you have a game in a series where there's extended OT.

Oh eff that. Every professional sport has some tie game mechanic that extends play. Hockey, Baseball and basketball all do not change the rules of play for the extended game. No station rep or programmer is gonna suggest the MLB or NBA change their game. And you best believe the quality of the pitching in the 14th inning has gone down so why complain about hockey having tired skaters? While in basketball its assured the last 40 seconds of regulation and EVERY OT period will be dragged out for more time than you could imagine, at least in hockey the clock can't be significantly without consequences.

Because the simple fact is you're treating baseball and basketball like they're similiar to hockey in any way and they're not. Basketball is a non-contact sport with constant scoring, it's unlikely mulitple OT periods would be neccessary and even if they were they don't expose the players to the risks of long hockey games. Sure, the last few minutes of a basketball game can be dragged out. When hockey teams start playing to not screw up, as opposed to being aggressive, entire OT periods can run scoreless. I'm sure we all remember the Vancouver/Dallas series a couple years ago. Baseball, well frankly I don't think you even have to be in shape to play. A pitcher can be changed and isn't going to be pitching every game of a series any way. Look at how Ryan Getzelf played tonight, you can't tell me that tripe OT game hasn't impacted the players. Obviously this is not the only obstacle hockey is facing in terms of getting greater TV time in the US, however, can you site any NBA games that have had 70-80 minutes worth of overtime? Equally so, between extra innings or periods in basketball games the teams don't get 20 minute breaks either.

[Ahriman 1]

Because the simple fact is you're treating baseball and basketball like they're similiar to hockey in any way and they're not.

In the context of this thread they are not only similar, they are interchangeable parts; we are talking about changing the rules of the game to fit a television broadcaster's schedule. A hockey game, a basketball game, football, golf and soccer are all the same "sport event programming scheduled to fill ______ time frame"

With the exception of football which has been tailor made for broadcast (on purpose or otherwise) the two major sports in America, the MBL and NBA, both have unmodified overtime periods for tie games. I see no reason hockey should be changing its rules.

[RecLeagueHero 0]

Because the simple fact is you're treating baseball and basketball like they're similiar to hockey in any way and they're not.

In the context of this thread they are not only similar, they are interchangeable parts; we are talking about changing the rules of the game to fit a television broadcaster's schedule. A hockey game, a basketball game, football, golf and soccer are all the same "sport event programming scheduled to fill ______ time frame"

With the exception of football which has been tailor made for broadcast (on purpose or otherwise) the two major sports in America, the MBL and NBA, both have unmodified overtime periods for tie games. I see no reason hockey should be changing its rules.

They aren't similiar in the least. Baseball extra innings have no fixed time periods and can be over very quickly. There is no break between innings because they needn't be one. Basketball takes a few minutes between periods, hockey takes 20 minutes between OT periods. The broadcaster must accept that in addition to the disruption caused by extended OT periods, they must also accept these extended 20 minutes per period breaks. Neither the NBA or the MLB offers players a 20 minute breaks between OT periods. Personally, I don't really care if they change it or not. Living in Washington state it's not only easy to get Versus, I have easy access to the CBC and other Canadian programming. However, from a broadcaster's standpoint, in the current set up they would have to accept major programming disruptions to carry hockey. With the audience hockey has to offer they probably won't accept those risks.

[Ahriman 1]

Running 10 minutes into Jay Leno or 40 minutes into it, it's still running over the programming block. Regardless of what you're saying about the differences, the pace of the game in OT doesnt change from regulation in hockey, baseball or basketball. Change the amount of time between OT periods then, not the game, fans of hockey don't want to see OT fundamentally altered like that.

[Chadd 916]

Running 10 minutes into Jay Leno or 40 minutes into it, it's still running over the programming block. Regardless of what you're saying about the differences, the pace of the game in OT doesnt change from regulation in hockey, baseball or basketball. Change the amount of time between OT periods then, not the game, fans of hockey don't want to see OT fundamentally altered like that.

Leno is taped anyway, just show 15 minutes of that during the intermission. It doesn't help that the commentators and reporters don't want to put in the extra time and their opinion comes out in a lot of the intermission reports and post game articles.

[Ahriman 1]

fine with me. Just dont change the game, they can show itchy and scratchy reruns if need be

[shotty 7]

leave 4 on 4 and shootouts to inline hockey. Maybe next we should turn extra innings in baseball into a home run derby to decide the winner.

exactly. continuous OT is the most exciting part of the playoffs, especially when the refs put their whistles away and only call the clearly blatant stuff. it brings the routine of a 60 min game into a battle of strength and skill