Eklund: Crowdsourcing. Do you want a 10 minute 3-3 OT? And no Backsies

I hate when players pull out their phones and start texting while entering the O zone, it's pretty rude.

We all know this play…..Your team is in the offensive zone, circling, when one of their players text the puck out of the offensive zone and circles back to their own defensive zone to facilitate a line change… very box lacrosse…

I want 10 minutes and no offsides.

I want 10 minutes and no offsides.
- Woderwick

I like it! Also get rid of the trapizoid. Let the goalies play the puck anywhere and watch the carnage.

Although the 3 on 3 might be exciting, but how about a team playing back to back and both go the distance, then the stupid shootout. Players will just have to stay in their gear, catch the bus and plane and change in the hotel room of the next opponent.
In some cases, teams are already playing far too many extra time games, not because of parity, but because of the league being watered down

No, I want 5on5 if its more than 5min.
3 points for a regulation win
2 for an over time win
1 for an over time loss

I just had the pleasure of seeing a PWHL Game and it went to 3on3 and its exciting live so much room and crafty players being crafty! What a game!

No, I want 5on5 if its more than 5min.
3 points for a regulation win
2 for an over time win
1 for an over time loss

I just had the pleasure of seeing a PWHL Game and it went to 3on3 and its exciting live so much room and crafty players being crafty! What a game!
- Tom Dusome

The whole reason Shootouts were brought in was so games wouldnt go on longer and to have a winner every game. 5 on 5 doesnt work because it typically takes too long. They know fans have to work the next morning. They need games to end quick. 3 on 3 was way too open for it to last more than 10 mins.

You could possibly try 5 on 5 and restrict line changes to only after whistles perhaps. That pretty much ensures both teams get tired and make mistakes or take penalties.

1 point each for a tie in regulation. Game over after 60 minutes. Why does there have to be a team that scores more than the other?

A team that ties the score is really the winner, they earned 1 point. The team that gave up the tying goal is the loser, they lost 1 point. It's simple math.

No Backsies and a shot clock. 7 minute 3 on 3 or both teams LOSE.

NO, just stop the ability go back past the red line unless the player is changing

How about no changing the defensive side, if there's a defensive zone faceoff. Freeze the puck, no line change.

The only changes needed

Get rid of the instigator rule
Bring back more divisional/rivalry games
Nix the trapezoid
No more allstar break
And old playoff format 1 thru 8

1 point each for a tie in regulation. Game over after 60 minutes. Why does there have to be a team that scores more than the other?

A team that ties the score is really the winner, they earned 1 point. The team that gave up the tying goal is the loser, they lost 1 point. It's simple math.
- powerenforcer

I was about to post the same thing.
3pts for a win
1pt each for a tie
NO POINTS FOR ANYONE EVER FOR LOSING A GAME!!! (that is some modern day weak-a55 participation ribbon BS...points for losing).

Yea,let’s get rid of that bullpoop shootout,and have 10 minute overtime.

The only changes needed

Get rid of the instigator rule
Bring back more divisional/rivalry games
Nix the trapezoid
No more allstar break
And old playoff format 1 thru 8
- Theathletic is for libs

Like the name of your handle!
Agree w most of what you said:
Get rid of the instigator rule
Nix the trapezoid. If the goalie ventures out, he becomes like any other player
Love more divisional/rivalry games
I don’t have an issue w the all star break on years without Olympics. Guys do need a break. It’s a grueling season. Or, instead of the all star break, I thought the four nations was fun. Just add in the Russians, etc. once they get their head out of their asses.
And really like 1 plays 8, 2 plays 7, etc. I believe 2playing 3 takes out one of the best teams. Save that for a later round, if both make it longer into the playoffs.

Also, if you’re going to keep an OT, the 3 on 3 is fun, but going back into your own zone to regroup takes the excitement away and slows down the game.

I have no issues w the 3-2-1 point system. It would make the players push to win it in regulation.

Thats my two cents worth.

Do people actually think 3 on 3 is exciting OT? It's always the same thing, whatever team gets possession of the puck cycles it and holds it, sometimes in their own zone, just waiting for the one perfect shot. I say 10 min 4 on 4 if anything.

The only changes needed

Get rid of the instigator rule
Bring back more divisional/rivalry games
Nix the trapezoid
No more allstar break
And old playoff format 1 thru 8
- Theathletic is for libs

Forget this. The playoff format should be 1-16, with the division leaders getting the top 4 spots. It would make winning the division mean something and it also makes Stanley Cup match-ups more unpredictable.

I also think there should be 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT win and 1 point for OT loss. This would make winning in regulation mean something.

This season, under current rules, 5 minutes of OT has been enough to get a winning goal 75% of the time. At that rate, we'd expect:

- 75% of games have a winner within 5 minutes (1 out of 4 games still tied)
- 93.75% of games to have a winner within 10 minutes (1 out of 16 games still tied)
- 98.44% of games to have a winner within 15 minutes (1 out of 64 games still tied)
- 99.61% of games to have a winner within 20 minutes (1 out of 256 games still tied)

And remember, those rates are based on current OT goal scoring. Scoring rates would likely increase even further the longer overtime lasts, or if there were additional rules preventing teams from retreating all the way back to their side of center.

So here's my suggestion:

- Put 20 minutes on the clock
- Play 3 on 3
- One a team gains possession in the offensive zone, retreating behind center results in a minor penalty
- If nobody scores after 20 minutes, tie game. No shootouts, ever.

Oh, and no charity points for getting to OT. You win, you get 2. You lose, you get zero. Better luck next time.

Benefits:

- Most OT games are still wrapping up in under 5 minutes
- The average NHL team would only need more than 10 minutes of OT about once per season
- Ties would be extremely rare (one tie game on average per year across the entire league)
- Shootouts would be gone forever
- All games worth the same number of points

Drawbacks:
- Basically none. Like, your team might have to play a kinda long OT once in a while. Boo frickin' hoo.

YES .

(frank) 3 on 3, it's like basketball with no shot clock or back court rule. may as well flip a coin to save injury

20 minute 5 on 5 til somebody wins. 82 games plus playoffs

Bring back ties, 2 line passes, and actual fights that don't require an rsvp invitation prior. . .

If no backsies, then there's no reason for 10 minute OT.

1 point each for a tie in regulation. Game over after 60 minutes. Why does there have to be a team that scores more than the other?

A team that ties the score is really the winner, they earned 1 point. The team that gave up the tying goal is the loser, they lost 1 point. It's simple math.
- powerenforcer

Because thats the entire point of every sport....moron

No one gets a point for losing during team play.
2 points for a win, 1 point only if you lose in the shootout.
I am always surprised that so few people like shootouts. I love them. Only one game that I attended went to a shootout and it was exciting to see. On TV I love the long shootouts where they're running out of players. Love seeing both the individual skills of the shooter and the goalie's skills. Doesn't everyone like seeing penalty shots too?

Because thats the entire point of every sport....moron
- Brooks_Light

I think you are missing the point. Bettman wants parity. Too many teams = ties.