The internet has been dominated recently by stories of East Coast shark attacks and arguments about gay marriage. Can we please turn our attention to something important? Like why the heck the NHL approved playing 3-on-3 overtime for regular season games?
Maybe I am way off base here. Maybe come October I will love 3-on-3 OT. But for now, I think 3-on-3 should be reserved for memories of the pick-up basketball games of my youth. I have heard the arguments for the change: Too many games end in shooutouts and, though it is exciting for the fans, the shootout decides a game in a way that is too different from how the previous 65 minutes were played. So the solution was to further bastardize the game to fix the way it was bastardized when the shootout was created ten years ago? I suppose it might be better than the shootout, but when was the last time you saw 3-on-3 played in an actual NHL game?
Three skaters aside could be interesting when you have the best players on the ice allowed more room to show their skill. In fact, if it is so great let's play 3-on-3 all the time. Wide open play, lots of goals, goalies under siege, the scoreboard lighting up like a video game-what's not to love?. (Mr Bettman, I am totally kidding.) There could also be precious seconds wasted chasing pucks that were not held in the offensive zone. 3-on-3 overtime is just more circus trickery that, unfortunately, will still end in a shootout if no one scores in OT. I have some suggestions that might work better, especially for those concerned about excessive wear and tear on those poor, over-taxed star players.
*Flip a coin. (See this quarter it used to be a nickel.)
*Instead of letting the pros finish, we will let the Mites that play during intermission settle things in overtime.
*No sticks or pucks during OT. A team picks its five best skaters to figure skate a routine to music. The team earning the best artistic and technical judges marks earns a standings point.
*At the end of regulation, one monkey will dress in the sweater of each team. The team whose monkey flings its poo the furthest wins!
Ooh, Ohh. Pick me! Pick me!
Yes, you there in the back that looks like you have been sitting on a good idea for ten years.
I have a plan. I know how we can make it so fewer games end in a shootout.
Let's hear it.
GET RID OF THE SHOOTOUT!
So simple, yet so brilliant. The shootout is exciting for fans, but it is more like an exhibition contest or a game to end practice. Nothing of value should be decided with an exhibition. (I am looking at you and your "All-Star Game winner earns home field advantage in the World Series" fiasco, Major League Baseball.) I say we go back to the old days when games could end in (GASP!) ties. A team earns one point for a tie and two points for a win. This fixes four problems. One, we get rid of the ghastly shootout. Two, we eliminate a team earning a point for simply reaching OT. I know my Capitals have benefited mightily from this system, but awarding a point to a team that loses is foolish. Three, the standings get easier to decipher (Goodbye ROW and OTL). Four,teams have to win (or at least tie) their way in to the playoffs. Tell me why I am wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment