Shootouts!

cw08 · Post by **cw08** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:25 am

http://bgsufalcons.cstv.com/sports/m-ho ... 08aaa.html

I like this rule. Eliminating the sister kisser is good for any sport.

bgbill · Post by **bgbill** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:21 pm

Yes, but you're from the North.

DWhite21 · Post by **DWhite21** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:55 pm

Even though I don't really think they're a good way to decide a game, I'm def. still looking forward to seeing shootouts. I'm just wondering what BG's lineup of 3 might look like. I'd probably take Cepis, Sexton and Solway.

Falcon Fanatic · Post by **Falcon Fanatic** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:31 pm

As fun as they are to watch, I don't like them in deciding games. I don't think it's fair to leave the game down to the goalie and a shooter, when it's a TEAM sport.

cw08 · Post by **cw08** » Sun Aug 17, 2008 6:22 pm

bgbill wrote:Yes, but you're from the North.

Haha. It took me a second to figure this one out. I actually live in the south now, but still think inter-familial relations are not OK.

I agree it's kind of lame to decide a team game that way, but for a usually undersized team like BG, it may be a good thing.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:21 am

My tie breaker:

5 minute 4-on-4, if still tied, 5 minute 3-on-3. If no one scores after a freaking 3 on 3 then the teams are truly equal.

VDub26Falcon · Post by **VDub26Falcon** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:24 am

I'm really glad the CCHA decided to go with this for the regular season. I hate ties and I think I've made that point more than once on this board. It's a step in the right direction...I do like the 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3 idea though...another idea that just popped into my head, what if they did 2 5 minutes OT's, each with on team on a man advantage...that'd be interesting. Then, assuming it's BG/Miami or something, say BG scores 2:15 into their "Power Play" which is pretty early for a Scott Paluch coached team, then Miami would have to score their "Power Play" goal in less time than that. Sound interesting to anyone?

cw08 · Post by **cw08** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:09 am

A shootout takes less than 10 minutes. When you get all those complicated overtimes, it just prolongs things too much.

There are writers on deadline, people being paid to be there, it costs money to keep the rink open etc.

The shootout helped the NHL become more exciting, maybe it will serve the same purpose for college hockey.

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:54 pm

complicated over times...its sudden death...nothing complicated about it, at all, the "team" that scores first wins.
At the very least they should play one full OT period, before moving on to the lackluster shoot out. Which really honestly is, as put on another thread the exact same as settling a basketball game with a slam dunk contest, or a football game with field goals.

The shoot puts the goalie in the worst possible position, forcing him to push his body to the limits, in a repeated situation that he is only likely to see with less than 4% of all shots. Which has resulted in unneeded injuries.
The shoot out should conducted from the slot with one timers, to be on even ground, and less dangerous to the goalie.
Imagine a football "shoot out" where an IO gets a free run on the qb who is trying to throw a pass into double coverage. Yea its exciting but at the risk of your QB is it really worth it?

cw08 · Post by **cw08** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:39 am

By complicated I meant the 5-on-4 whoever scores quicker etc.

I don't think the quarterback analogy holds up at all, though. The goalie isn't subjected to contact. Ask any goalie with a set of balls, and he'll love the thrill of a shootout. It's 1-on-1 there's nothing unfair about it.

PegCityFalcon · Post by **PegCityFalcon** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:34 am

Well, this sucks. A win can be gained while a Defenceman has to watch pretty boys beat the goalies. I hate shoot-outs soooooo much. Just give them a tie. The NHL screwed that up too. 3 point games. What a bunch of Fadoo

jpfalcon09 · Post by **jpfalcon09** » Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:14 am

It's all about entertainment value. Truth is, no one wants to pay money to see a tie game. For the casual sports fan, there's no final resolution. Shootouts serve their purpose.

As for the players, I doubt they really care too much about it. Goalies see it as a personal challenge, shooters get to see how their moves stack up. Average players have 65 minutes if the game gets to a shootout to make a difference. Just the facts of the game, I don't think it'll be that big of a problem. As long as they don't touch the NHL playoffs and NCAA Tourney overtime rules.

rood · Post by **rood** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:11 am

I was watching the olympics this morning and saw an idea that's worse than shootouts. In tie games in the softball competition they spot you a runner on second base at the start of each extra inning.

VDub26Falcon · Post by **VDub26Falcon** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:29 am

rood wrote:I was watching the olympics this morning and saw an idea that's worse than shootouts. In tie games in the softball competition they spot you a runner on second base at the start of each extra inning.

Not just softball...when the U.S. was playing Cuba in baseball, it was 3-3 going into the 10th...they played the 10th normal but then in the 11th, a guy started on 2nd...that is by far the most god-awful rule ever.

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:50 am

that would be as bad flipping a coin to who started OT a man down for 2 min and alternating every two min.
the shoot out, is still worse.

Shootouts!

Shootouts!

Even dumber than shootouts

Re: Even dumber than shootouts