Blackhawks 15-16 season

[kujay]

Yeah apparently Toews has been sick too.

[Banedon]

This is good stuff too...about how hockey doesn't give stars nights off like other sports....

 

http://chicago.suntimes.com/blackhawks-hockey/7/71/1282537/rest-weary-stubborn-nhl

[jersey cubs fan]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[jersey cubs fan]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[UMFan83]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

Crazy that less than 10 years ago the Hawks used to pay the Score to air their games.

[kujay]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

See, I get why they have the rule. But it sucks for guys that were actually hurt or missed time before the break. I know Toews only missed one period but still.

[jersey cubs fan]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

See, I get why they have the rule. But it sucks for guys that were actually hurt or missed time before the break. I know Toews only missed one period but still.

I look at it as a good opportunity to get him rest. If he wasn't forced to sit down he wouldn't do it.

[kujay]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

See, I get why they have the rule. But it sucks for guys that were actually hurt or missed time before the break. I know Toews only missed one period but still.

I look at it as a good opportunity to get him rest. If he wasn't forced to sit down he wouldn't do it.

 

Fair point.

[17 Seconds]

3v3 overtime is the best thing in sports

[Brian707]

3v3 overtime is the best thing in sports

 

 

Well it beats the shootout, but both are gimmicks to make sure a game ends with a "winner"

 

 

I never saw Coach Q more irate than he was last night after that [expletive] no goal call on Hossa

[Derwood]

3v3 overtime is the best thing in sports

 

 

Well it beats the shootout, but both are gimmicks to make sure a game ends with a "winner"

 

Because ties are stupid and should be relegated to soccer and Greco-Roman wrestling

 

And why is winner in quotes?

[Brian707]

3v3 overtime is the best thing in sports

 

 

Well it beats the shootout, but both are gimmicks to make sure a game ends with a "winner"

 

Because ties are stupid and should be relegated to soccer and Greco-Roman wrestling

 

And why is winner in quotes?

 

 

Winner is in quotes because they received the extra point in a 3-3 contest that isn't real hockey. I get it, it's better than the shootout, and 3-3 keeps them to a minimum. I just don't agree that it is the best thing in sports, especially when games ending in OT/Shootout are now 3 point games and regulation games are 2. This has been going on since the 2005 lockout. I agree ties are stupid, and there is no real solution, I just wish there was a better way to go about it.

[UMFan83]

At least we all can agree on 1 thing, 3-on-3 OT is still better than college football OT.

[Derwood]

At least we all can agree on 1 thing, 3-on-3 OT is still better than college football OT.

 

Tough comparison. It's not like they go to 7-on-7 for college OT.

 

But there is no good solution to football OT

[jersey cubs fan]

At least we all can agree on 1 thing, 3-on-3 OT is still better than college football OT.

 

Tough comparison. It's not like they go to 7-on-7 for college OT.

 

But there is no good solution to football OT

hockey is regularly played with fewer than 5 on 5, whereas football is always played 11 on 11, so this still counts as "real hockey".

[biittner77]

Would 7 on 7 with normal football rules be better than getting the ball on the 20?

[Butterscup]

ugly looking injury for Hossa

 

https://twitter.com/myregularface/status/698703809598640129

[NewUserName]

I wouldn't mind the tie in the NHL if teams weren't playing for the tie in the last 5 mins of regulation. I think there should be a bigger incentive to win. 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie.

 

Of course I think if they keep the current system there should be 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for a SO win. No points for a loss. This would discourage teams from trapping.

[biittner77]

I wouldn't mind the tie in the NHL if teams weren't playing for the tie in the last 5 mins of regulation. I think there should be a bigger incentive to win. 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie.

 

Of course I think if they keep the current system there should be 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for a SO win. No points for a loss. This would discourage teams from trapping.

 

I agree with all of this but I get the sense that the NHL will never go back to ending games in a tie. Your second suggestion seems fair and logical. Therefore the NHL will never do that either.

[bukie]

I wouldn't mind the tie in the NHL if teams weren't playing for the tie in the last 5 mins of regulation. I think there should be a bigger incentive to win. 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie.

 

Of course I think if they keep the current system there should be 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for a SO win. No points for a loss. This would discourage teams from trapping.

 

I agree with all of this but I get the sense that the NHL will never go back to ending games in a tie. Your second suggestion seems fair and logical. Therefore the NHL will never do that either.

 

I like the tie instead of the shootout. I'd like to see 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OT loss, and one each for a tie if nobody scores in the 3 on 3 OT. That way teams that play for the tie are sacrificing points, not gaining them.

[UMFan83]

[biittner77]

I wouldn't mind the tie in the NHL if teams weren't playing for the tie in the last 5 mins of regulation. I think there should be a bigger incentive to win. 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie.

 

Of course I think if they keep the current system there should be 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for a SO win. No points for a loss. This would discourage teams from trapping.

 

I agree with all of this but I get the sense that the NHL will never go back to ending games in a tie. Your second suggestion seems fair and logical. Therefore the NHL will never do that either.

 

I like the tie instead of the shootout. I'd like to see 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OT loss, and one each for a tie if nobody scores in the 3 on 3 OT. That way teams that play for the tie are sacrificing points, not gaining them.

 

I don't like the idea of loser points.

 

I've heard people theorize that the reason they don't go with the 3-2-1 system is that they don't want to inflate the number of points a team can win in a season. It would be interesting to see how that would affect the standings.

[UMFan83]

 

I agree with all of this but I get the sense that the NHL will never go back to ending games in a tie. Your second suggestion seems fair and logical. Therefore the NHL will never do that either.

 

I like the tie instead of the shootout. I'd like to see 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OT loss, and one each for a tie if nobody scores in the 3 on 3 OT. That way teams that play for the tie are sacrificing points, not gaining them.

 

I don't like the idea of loser points.

 

I've heard people theorize that the reason they don't go with the 3-2-1 system is that they don't want to inflate the number of points a team can win in a season. It would be interesting to see how that would affect the standings.

 

I agree, no loser points. I know everyone has different takes on this and most hate ties, but I am fine with them.

 

My ideal state: 60 minutes of hockey, winner gets 2 points, loser gets 0. If tied after 60, 5 minutes of 3-on-3, winner gets 2 points, loser gets 0. If tied after OT, its a tie and both teams get a point.

[Brian707]

 

 

 

I don't like the idea of loser points.

 

I've heard people theorize that the reason they don't go with the 3-2-1 system is that they don't want to inflate the number of points a team can win in a season. It would be interesting to see how that would affect the standings.

 

 

The correct term is "winner" point. Both teams tied at the end of regulation receive 1 point, the extra point is awarded to the winner of either the 3-3 format or the shootout.

 

3-2-1 does make sense, they do it in Europe and the Olympics. The NHL says it will affect the standings but I have seen on yahoo show that it doesn't really in recent seasons.

[Brian707]

 

 

 

My ideal state: 60 minutes of hockey, winner gets 2 points, loser gets 0. If tied after 60, 5 minutes of 3-on-3, winner gets 2 points, loser gets 0. If tied after OT, its a tie and both teams get a point.

 

 

All that does is make a gimmick which 3-3 really is even more important than it should be.

 

The only thing close to fair is, 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for some sort of OT/ shootout win, 1 point for some sort of OT/loss loss and 0 for a regulation loss.