If you consider yourself one of these hockey fans that believes overtime in the Stanley Cup Playoffs is a system in need of repair or replacement, there's simply no hope for you. Burn your jerseys, give me your tickets, return that copy of "Slap Shot" to the DVD store and take up Arena Football -- heck, it'll finally give you a reason to start enjoying ESPN again, right? The four-overtime marathon that began the Dallas/Vancouver series, which concludes this evening, has sparked a misguided movement in certain corners of the hockey media to kill the 5-on-5 sudden death OT format for something -- anything -- more television and bleary-eyed-sportswriter friendly. It's non-traditionalist at best, complete East Coast bias at worst.
Keith Jones and Brian Engblom of VERSUS have proposed different variations of a plan in which OT would drop to four-on-four after one or two periods; they appeared close to throwing a tantrum last night as an entertaining Detroit/Calgary game crept deeper into OT. In an editorial in the Globe and Mail, Steve McAllister floated the idea that a regular-season skills competition could one day determine the Stanley Cup champion. (Is this what happens in Toronto when the Leafs miss the playoffs?) Whoever was wearing the antlers for The Bellowing Moose column on NBCSports.com last week agreed that it was time to consider a shootout:
"Here's a suggested compromise for the NHL: play one overtime period five on five. If the game is still tied, play another period of four on four. If no one has scored by then, have a five round shootout to decide it. If that's too much for the traditionalists to handle, only use it in the first three rounds of the playoffs, and let the Stanley Cup finalists play 'til they drop."Brilliant. The NHL would then have exactly three different overtime formats in its regular season, postseason and Stanley Cup Finals. And people complain that the standings are too complicated for casual fans to follow?
To the league's credit, it's been steadfast in its defense of the postseason overtime format. Gary Bettman told me at the National Press Club two years ago that we'd never see the shootout in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Gary Meagher, the NHL's vice-president of public relations, told the Canadian Press that the league had discussed altering overtime "in a very general way" but ruled out the shootout, at least in the Stanley Cup Finals. He did indicate, however, that a change in the OT format could be rationalized as a way to protect the players from injury or complete physical collapse during a close series.
Kara Yorio of the Sporting News, whom I'm pretty sure hasn't actually enjoyed a hockey game since her days as a Devils beat reporter many moons ago, agreed, and offered a plan (since pummeled by the die-hards on the HF Boards) that featured two 20-minute 5-on-5 periods followed by a shootout:
"Asking these players to play beyond two overtimes is unfair, unhealthy, mentally and physically exhausting and detrimental to the quality of hockey that comes in later games. During the regular season, teams cannot play three nights in a row. Why is it OK to ask them to play more than nine periods in three nights during the playoffs?I couldn't disagree more with her last point. In writing the "Flippin' Quarters" countdown on FanHouse, I've discovered several series in which a team lost an early multi-overtime game and then came back to win the series -- Edmonton and Detroit in 2006, for example. The Iconic Midwesterner of (Get) A Sporting Life also disagreed with Yorio, only a bit more vehemently:
...But the good stories wouldn't be lost. Five periods is plenty of time to create lasting memories. And you could talk about where you were after living and dying through 100 minutes of hockey, then watching that shootout goal go in. The great moments would be there. And if your team were to lose in a nonelimination game, it might have enough left to come back and win the series."
"Should we end a baseball after 14 innings to spare the poor dears? (We could decide the game with a bunting contest.) We could also do away with multiple OT's in basketball as well, by playing a game of HORSE after the first overtime. Jesus Christ. It is people like this that have made the NHL the third tier sport it is today. They have systematically removed each and every thing that gave the game its unique identity. Enough is enough."Indeed. Because whether you're in favor of changing the overtime format out of disdain for marathon games or out of concern for the health of the players, then you should be fine with going directly to a shootout immediately after regulation. No 5-on-5, no 4-on-4...just fast-forward to the money shot and be done with it. Any proposal that keeps some semblance of team hockey in a shootout format is an acknowledgment that ending a game with a skills competition is a pathetic downgrade from the current model and outright inferior to the much-heralded tradition of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. As Vancouver GM Dave Nonis said: "I do believe you have to end a hockey game by playing a hockey game."
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-23-2007 @ 12:03PM
fauxrumors said...
1) We commented on this very subject on our blog last week: http://newfaux.blogspot.com/2007/04/ot-nonsense.html#links
2) We agree anything other than the staus quo for the Cup playoffs, regardless of the round, is insane!
JUST SAY NO TO PLAYOFF SHOOT OUTS!
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 12:07PM
Christy said...
If they ever do away with the current system, I will be one unhappy fan. The idea of having a shootout determine a game's outcome in the playoffs makes me sick. Almost.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 12:38PM
Paul said...
"He did indicate, however, that a change in the OT format could be rationalized as a way to protect the players from injury or complete physical collapse during a close series."
This is nonsense. The playoffs have always been about attrition - who has enough gas in the tank to go the distance. Anyone who wants to change the playoffs like this is someone who is not a connoisseur of hockey.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 1:09PM
Greg Wyshynski said...
Paul -
I agree, but it's just the sort of diversionary justification I'd expect if this thing ever goes through. Remember the most recent fighting debate, where a ban on fighting was floated because the players are so much bigger/fights are so much more dangerous/we must protect our little chickens? Same tune, different song -- the overtime decision would be one made in regards to television and media critics, the same rationale for the fighting debate.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 1:09PM
Greg Wyshynski said...
Faux - agreed. I think 4-on-4 could fly, but a shootout anywhere near a seven-game series would have fans running for their torches for a march on NHL HQ.
BTW - now that I've gone from columnist to blogger, am I allowed to start using phrases like "go home, you whining douchebag, and shut up" to punctuate my points? God, I hope so...
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 1:40PM
nick said...
i think that even thinking about shootouts in the playoffs is horrible. I totally agree with the comment made by paul when he said "The playoffs have always been about attrition - who has enough gas in the tank to go the distance." Im even upset that the regular season has shootouts. The new rules and shootouts are nothing but money stunts. Since it raised revenue, they are keeping it for a while. I am a goalie who plays AAA ice hockey and am going to prep school next year. I dont like shootouts because hockey is a team sport. It should not rely on one player and one goalie to win a game. This isnt basketball or soccer. If shootouts go in playoffs, i bet the NHL will lose millions to true fans, but will only keep the bandwagoners who think that its "cool" to have shootouts when it totally defies the definition of a true team sport
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 1:51PM
nick said...
i also wanted to add something. if u click "believes overtime in the Stanley Cup Playoffs is a system in need of repair" at the top of the page, it shows a link where the writer is complaining about sleep deprication from overtime. "The playoffs are in a word, awesome, but we need to make sacrifices for experiencing the full effect of that awesomeness. And that sacrifice is a complete lack of proper sleep, and the resulting effects of sleep deprivation." This is pure selfishness. A true fan, like me, would stay up all night watchin their team go for the big win. But no, stupid writers like you try and persuade people with invalid points about personal preference.
Do you think your amount of sleep affects the team or the amount of money made by the teams? I dont think so. Also, what does sleep deprivation have to do with deciding about shootouts in playoffs. And then a writer talks about health problems. Well yeah its tough on yur body, but previous players in the old nhl did it for 100 years. Now its so much harder that they cant do it for the next few years? Put some more thought into your arguments, cause they are going to convince any true fan or at least anyone with common sense.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 2:28PM
Husker Fan said...
I'm not a diehard hockey fan, but I am a LONGTIME casual fan. I would refuse to watch another game if they changed the overtime format.
I'm an Islanders fan, and a lot of my best memories are indelibly linked to multi-overtime games in playoffs of years gone by.
Changing the overtime format will not bring in more fans, it will only chase away many like me.
I guess it will be determined by how badly the networks want the change, and how much the league bows to the quick buck rather than worrying about long term effects.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 2:32PM
Tom Luongo said...
I don't think the NHL will ever move away from sudden death OT to determine the outcome of a playoff game. There's too much at stake in Canada, where the real revenues of the league are generated, to change that portion of the game.
I will say, though, that it could happen that 4 on 4 is introduced at some point (after 1 or 2 OT periods) in order to finally just end the thing. Having watched some of the ridiculous snore fests over the past 10 years, it's true that the only players still anywhere close to fresh are the goalies and the possibility of a 5 or 6 OT game is not met with complete derision anymore.
And for the sake of that not happening I know that I wouldn't be too terribly upset at 4 on 4 after a certain amount of OT. I'm thinking 2 extra sessions. The purity of the game is one thing, the effect of one 4OT game on all the other games is another.
Ta,
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 2:59PM
tom said...
The shootout should NEVER,EVER,EVER,EVER go any further than what it does now. The only thing to do is to go 4 on 4 for the entire overtime.Open up the ice and this should lead to shorter o.t.'s. If you are a fan of the game, you enjoy seeing a 2,3 or 4 overtime game. I'm not an Islander fan but who can forget Pat La Fontaines' goal in the sixth ot against the Caps
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 3:25PM
ebscer said...
Despite protests from some people I was a fan of the shootout when it was introduced because it replaced the much hated tie. However to replace OT is a different matter all together. In my opinion overtime gets more exciting the longer it goes...
Dallas-Vancuver has been one of my favorite match ups to watch so far this year mostly beacuse of this...
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 3:42PM
jm said...
That is the worst idea ever. Overtime playoff hockey is the most exciting thing in all of sports. There is nothing that gets my heart pounding faster than it. The shootout, while better than a tie in regulation has no place in the playoffs.
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 3:50PM
jm said...
Sorry that was supposed to be "better than a tie in the regular season..."
Reply
4-23-2007 @ 10:27PM
sharon said...
I have followed hockey since Phila got a team in the 60's, and I for one hate the shootout. OT has always been exciting whether during the regular season or the playoffs. So much of hockey has changed, that the excitement of the regular season just isn't the same as it used to be. If they change the format of playoffs, I will only watch if my team should make it, instead of never missing a game.
Reply