08-09' Blackhawks (46-24-12) 104 PTS - 4th Seed In The West!

[17 Seconds]

Hockey shootouts are great for the casual fan. Those are the people the game needs to market to after the lockout almost ruined the sport. Is it the best way to decide who wins? Probably not, but seriously get over it. The game needs the excitement to keep people coming through the gates.

 

Then the casual fan is stupid. Yes, that's right I said stupid. Shootouts disrupts the continuity of the game. It's an embarrassment to the game of Hockey, and to it's tradition. And no I know I won't "get over it" because it's stupid. Might as well say...hey baseball, when the 9th inning is over, were going to have homerun derby. If hockey wants to increasing scoring, how about making the rinks international size, which is bigger then the NHL size, or instead of it being 5 on 5, make it 4 on 4 on NHL size ice. No need for shootout, period. I won't get over it, until it's gone. I rather see a tie then some carnival parade that is the shootout.

 

Couldn't have said it better.

 

Like I said... why should a 1 v 1 decide the outcome of a team sport?

 

So do you think walkoff home runs shouldn't count?

[Smack]

Hockey shootouts are great for the casual fan. Those are the people the game needs to market to after the lockout almost ruined the sport. Is it the best way to decide who wins? Probably not, but seriously get over it. The game needs the excitement to keep people coming through the gates.

 

Then the casual fan is stupid. Yes, that's right I said stupid. Shootouts disrupts the continuity of the game. It's an embarrassment to the game of Hockey, and to it's tradition. And no I know I won't "get over it" because it's stupid. Might as well say...hey baseball, when the 9th inning is over, were going to have homerun derby. If hockey wants to increasing scoring, how about making the rinks international size, which is bigger then the NHL size, or instead of it being 5 on 5, make it 4 on 4 on NHL size ice. No need for shootout, period. I won't get over it, until it's gone. I rather see a tie then some carnival parade that is the shootout.

 

Couldn't have said it better.

 

Like I said... why should a 1 v 1 decide the outcome of a team sport?

 

So do you think walkoff home runs shouldn't count?

 

bad analogy

[Soul]

Is the shootout idea really drawing in more fans? I don't even know how you would quantify that.

[UMFan83]

Is the shootout idea really drawing in more fans? I don't even know how you would quantify that.

 

Seriously. Shootouts happen so infrequently, that theres gotta be no correlation between attendance/ratings and shootouts. Unless the general public can't stand hockey because of the potential for ties. I guess that's possible.

[Soul]

Is the shootout idea really drawing in more fans? I don't even know how you would quantify that.

 

Seriously. Shootouts happen so infrequently, that theres gotta be no correlation between attendance/ratings and shootouts. Unless the general public can't stand hockey because of the potential for ties. I guess that's possible.

 

I would imagine they put the shootout in because casual fans (i.e. non hockey-watchers) said "I hate the ties!" alot. But I'm not sure. But then how do you figure out if it's actually working? I guess that's why some people have degrees in Marketing, and I don't.

[Smack]

Is the shootout idea really drawing in more fans? I don't even know how you would quantify that.

 

Seriously. Shootouts happen so infrequently, that theres gotta be no correlation between attendance/ratings and shootouts. Unless the general public can't stand hockey because of the potential for ties. I guess that's possible.

 

I would imagine they put the shootout in because casual fans (i.e. non hockey-watchers) said "I hate the ties!" alot. But I'm not sure. But then how do you figure out if it's actually working? I guess that's why some people have degrees in Marketing, and I don't.

 

Isn't the 'breakaway/penalty shot/1-on-1' widely considered one of the most exciting plays in sports? I would think the NHL instituted the shootout because it adds more of their 'premier' most exciting play. If a 'casual' sports fan is flipping channels he/she will likely stop to watch the shootout because it lasts a couple of minutes and decides the outcome of the game. The NFL and the NBA have both installed rules that allow for more offense. People like to see dunks, touchdowns, homers, and goals.

[Soul]

Is the shootout idea really drawing in more fans? I don't even know how you would quantify that.

 

Seriously. Shootouts happen so infrequently, that theres gotta be no correlation between attendance/ratings and shootouts. Unless the general public can't stand hockey because of the potential for ties. I guess that's possible.

 

I would imagine they put the shootout in because casual fans (i.e. non hockey-watchers) said "I hate the ties!" alot. But I'm not sure. But then how do you figure out if it's actually working? I guess that's why some people have degrees in Marketing, and I don't.

 

Isn't the 'breakaway/penalty shot/1-on-1' widely considered one of the most exciting plays in sports? I would think the NHL instituted the shootout because it adds more of their 'premier' most exciting play. If a 'casual' sports fan is flipping channels he/she will likely stop to watch the shootout because it lasts a couple of minutes and decides the outcome of the game. The NFL and the NBA have both installed rules that allow for more offense. People like to see dunks, touchdowns, homers, and goals.

 

I don't want to come off like a hockey expert because I'm definitely not, but to me the shootout is nothing like a breakaway goal during the game. If I had to choose a football analogy, it would be like taking everyone off the field except for the QB & WR and maybe 2 DBs, then having them throw bombs from the 50 yard line. Sure it would be fun as a distraction for a little while, but as the final deciding factor of the game?

 

I guess what I'm saying is I can see why people who love hockey don't like this.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is the shootout idea really drawing in more fans? I don't even know how you would quantify that.

 

Seriously. Shootouts happen so infrequently, that theres gotta be no correlation between attendance/ratings and shootouts. Unless the general public can't stand hockey because of the potential for ties. I guess that's possible.

 

I would imagine they put the shootout in because casual fans (i.e. non hockey-watchers) said "I hate the ties!" alot. But I'm not sure. But then how do you figure out if it's actually working? I guess that's why some people have degrees in Marketing, and I don't.

 

Isn't the 'breakaway/penalty shot/1-on-1' widely considered one of the most exciting plays in sports? I would think the NHL instituted the shootout because it adds more of their 'premier' most exciting play. If a 'casual' sports fan is flipping channels he/she will likely stop to watch the shootout because it lasts a couple of minutes and decides the outcome of the game. The NFL and the NBA have both installed rules that allow for more offense. People like to see dunks, touchdowns, homers, and goals.

 

I don't want to come off like a hockey expert because I'm definitely not, but to me the shootout is nothing like a breakaway goal during the game. If I had to choose a football analogy, it would be like taking everyone off the field except for the QB & WR and maybe 2 DBs, then having them throw bombs from the 50 yard line. Sure it would be fun as a distraction for a little while, but as the final deciding factor of the game?

 

I guess what I'm saying is I can see why people who love hockey don't like this.

 

Except shootout style plays occur in regular games as the result of some penalties. Plus, while the end of baseball, football or basketball games you either win or lose and it's done, the end of a shootout results in one team getting 2 points while the other gets 1. Winning the shootout gives you a little bonus, while losing the shootout doesn't really hurt you in the standings. I don't think there's a perfect answer to this situation, and I don't really see the point in getting worked up over shoot outs. Ties are messy, never ending playoff styles overtimes are unreasonable for the regular season.

[kujay]

If you go to a game, would you rather see your team play a five-minute OT, finished tied and get a point, or play through OT, lose the shootout and get a point?

 

You're still getting the one point. The shootout is just a bonus.

 

I don't get the negativity about it. And it is rare. I've been to probably 25 hockey games in the last 2+ seasons (mostly Blues games) and I've seen one shootout. I would imagine the actual percentage is higher than that, but it's still far from a regular thing.

 

And I don't think the shootout cheapens the excitement when a real penalty shot is awarded.

[Soul]

I should probably shut up because I don't even really know what I'm talking about. So I will ;)

[UMFan83]

Personally, I think shootouts should be all or nothing. 2 points for winning a shootout, 0 points for losing one. This SOL thing is just weird. The Blackhawks should be 3-5 right now.

[kujay]

Personally, I think shootouts should be all or nothing. 2 points for winning a shootout, 0 points for losing one. This SOL thing is just weird. The Blackhawks should be 3-5 right now.

 

You get a point to account in a small way for the "fluky" nature of the shootout. I think it's a good balance.

[Handlebar McSkullet]

I am totally getting into the hawks. I used to hate Hockey because I grew up in Madison which is college hockey mad, and it was annoying. I still hate college hockey, but I am really liking pro hockey. I will be watching the game tonight on HD. I still can only name 8 professional hockey and 5 are blackhawks, 2 are badgers who I actually hung out with, and sidney crosby.

[kujay]

I am totally getting into the hawks. I used to hate Hockey because I grew up in Madison which is college hockey mad, and it was annoying. I still hate college hockey, but I am really liking pro hockey. I will be watching the game tonight on HD. I still can only name 8 professional hockey and 5 are blackhawks, 2 are badgers who I actually hung out with, and sidney crosby.

 

This kind of thing is awesome to hear for someone who has been preaching the virtues of hockey for as long as I've had skates attached to my feet (25 years now).

 

I'm looking forward to heading out for an early dinner and watching the Hawks get some national TV love in HD as well.

[Flames24Rulz]

I am totally getting into the hawks. I used to hate Hockey because I grew up in Madison which is college hockey mad, and it was annoying. I still hate college hockey, but I am really liking pro hockey. I will be watching the game tonight on HD. I still can only name 8 professional hockey and 5 are blackhawks, 2 are badgers who I actually hung out with, and sidney crosby.

 

Get NHL 09. Not only is it a phenomenal game, but it's probably the best way of learning how hockey works and the players in the league.

[Mark_R]

F baseball and mnf tonight. Hawks are on in HD!

[salukifudd]

F baseball and mnf tonight. Hawks are on in HD!

 

I agree with this sentiment, but admit I will be flipping (quickly) to see how the baseball game is going.

[Cynosure]

it's kind of stupid to use baseball as an example since it's a series of 1v1 events. complaining about the shootout is dumb, it's not going anywhere. it's not bad for the game at all. i don't know if it's good or not, but it's definitely not bad (and pissing off purists is not a bad thing since they aren't going to go anywhere because a handful of games are decided in a way that they don't like).

 

the point system is the problem in the NHL, not shootouts. either go to a 3 point system (3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win w/ 1 for a OT/SO loss) or go by W/L record and stop recording OT/SO losses.

 

Baseball is absolutely NOT a bad example.

 

In baseball in extra innings you have players in the field to make the outs, and also it is a 1 v 1 for the moment

. But unless you hit a HR you can't score by yourself.

[Cynosure]

If you go to a game, would you rather see your team play a five-minute OT, finished tied and get a point, or play through OT, lose the shootout and get a point?

 

You're still getting the one point. The shootout is just a bonus.

 

I don't get the negativity about it. And it is rare. I've been to probably 25 hockey games in the last 2+ seasons (mostly Blues games) and I've seen one shootout. I would imagine the actual percentage is higher than that, but it's still far from a regular thing.

 

And I don't think the shootout cheapens the excitement when a real penalty shot is awarded.

 

I would rather OT be played until someone scores.

[Mark_R]

If you go to a game, would you rather see your team play a five-minute OT, finished tied and get a point, or play through OT, lose the shootout and get a point?

 

You're still getting the one point. The shootout is just a bonus.

 

I don't get the negativity about it. And it is rare. I've been to probably 25 hockey games in the last 2+ seasons (mostly Blues games) and I've seen one shootout. I would imagine the actual percentage is higher than that, but it's still far from a regular thing.

 

And I don't think the shootout cheapens the excitement when a real penalty shot is awarded.

 

I would rather OT be played until someone scores.

 

Wouldn't that have huge burnout potential?

[manbearcub]

If you go to a game, would you rather see your team play a five-minute OT, finished tied and get a point, or play through OT, lose the shootout and get a point?

 

You're still getting the one point. The shootout is just a bonus.

 

I don't get the negativity about it. And it is rare. I've been to probably 25 hockey games in the last 2+ seasons (mostly Blues games) and I've seen one shootout. I would imagine the actual percentage is higher than that, but it's still far from a regular thing.

 

And I don't think the shootout cheapens the excitement when a real penalty shot is awarded.

 

I would rather OT be played until someone scores.

Never gonna happen so you might as well drop it now.

[manbearcub]

someone have an online link? we dont get versus here for some reason. [-(

[Cynosure]

If you go to a game, would you rather see your team play a five-minute OT, finished tied and get a point, or play through OT, lose the shootout and get a point?

 

You're still getting the one point. The shootout is just a bonus.

 

I don't get the negativity about it. And it is rare. I've been to probably 25 hockey games in the last 2+ seasons (mostly Blues games) and I've seen one shootout. I would imagine the actual percentage is higher than that, but it's still far from a regular thing.

 

And I don't think the shootout cheapens the excitement when a real penalty shot is awarded.

 

I would rather OT be played until someone scores.

Never gonna happen so you might as well drop it now.

 

Hmm can't find where I said it ever would? It's called an opinion.

 

EDIT: I can get a link for you around game time. Try channel 71, that's what it is everywhere.

[UMFan83]

$%#@@ I don't get Versus on my normal RCN cable package. I switched from Comcast like 6 months ago, and on Comcast it was part of the regular package.

 

Oh well, I'll just pretend like its a pre-2008 home game.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think Versus is on TVUplayer.

 

Let's get a real win and not have to worry about OT or shootouts.