Reply With QuoteI think that all started with the '94 strike, but I digress.Originally Posted by dasNdanger
Speaking as someone who played competitive sports all the way to the professional level - ties are horseshit. You play until someone wins.
Yeah...see...that's where the game lost me. In playoffs, I don't mind (there has to be a tie-breaker), but in regular season games, this just seems a bit much.
I remember asking someone that question a while back (not sure if it was in real life, here, or on another forum...brain like a sieve sometimes), but forgot the details. So thanks for answering!
But picking up on the tie-breaker...like I said, that's where the game lost me. Does anyone else think that it hurt the game (or, at the very least, viewer interest in the game), or helped it? I remember a while back when the NHL went on strike, and nobody much cared, and it seems to me that interest in the NHL has greatly diminished over the past 20 or so years. Or...maybe it's just me.
das
I think that all started with the '94 strike, but I digress.
Speaking as someone who played competitive sports all the way to the professional level - ties are horseshit. You play until someone wins.
Oh, that's why I never see anyone (even professed hockey fans) in jerseys - replicas are $118 a pop. That's a bit absurd.
I also think the NHL was the last major sport to go to a system that broke ties. It now seems odd to me that NHL games did end in regulation as actual ties once.
Buy The Gathering -and other great indie comics via Grayhaven ComicsI'm sorry, I just have no desire to watch Wolverine fuck anyone.
And the Japanese wonder why we still make fun of their baseball league.
Well, that and the massive corporate whoring.
I happen to like shootouts instead of ties. I like the idea of a team winning a game. I would hate to spend my hard earned money to watch what ends up being a tied game.
And yes jerseys are expensive. But hockey replica jerseys were always the highest of the major sports.
Thanks to TheKraken for the awesome sig!!
Wooing the Lady Sif and covering for Thor since 1983!
The NHL shootout is the worst "innovation" to bastardize hockey since the instigator rule.
they said they want teams to play for a win instead of a tie... ok, 2 points for a win, 0 points for a loss, 0 points for a tie.
They said they want to do away with ties altogether because the "fans" would rather have a clear cut winner and loser each game... ok, play 4 on 4, or 3 on 3 until a goal is scored, or even keep the dumb half court setup and trade odd man rushes until one team emerges... but to have a game come down to one shooter v goalie isnt hockey...
can you imagine...
baseball ties settled with home run derby?
basketball settled with slam dunk contest... or free throw shoot out
NFL settled with duelling field goal kickers from 40 yards?
Would be the same stupid result... Yeah, it's exciting, no one's ever left during a shootout, everyone's standing in their seats, blah blah blah... No one's ever left during a bench clearing brawl either, why not settle things the old school way? oh yeah, i forgot they turned the lights out on that too...
sigh... used to be great. The speed and skill is waay beyond what it used to be, but the league itself is messed up.
I guess I have more of a European mindset when it comes to ties - in regular season not such a big deal, it's the final championships that count. As I understand it, that's why they changed the rules in hockey - to appeal more to the US viewer (though I don't think it really mattered much in the long run).
Beta_Ray_Bryan mentioned the new rules after the lockout season (was that around 2004??). He said "no more two line passes to clog up the neutral zone"...and other changes. Geez...I'm really out of the loop, I suppose, wasn't aware that there were so many changes. Probably why I do have trouble following a game now (not that I've really sat and watched a game outside of catching one here or there down at the local watering hole).
It's been interesting. I just might go brush up on the new rules. Thanks.
das
Yeah, see...that's how I feel. It used to be 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. It made sense to me, but people like winners (though I wonder how much of that is based on sports betting v the preferences of non-betting fans?). Still, the fact that hockey has three different ways to end a tie...if one way doesn't work, we'll try another...then another...just seems...awkward, messy. Pick one tie-breaking method, and stick with it! Or just settle on a tie, and go drink some beer!
das
The Rangers are visiting tampa in April. You should go to that game
Really the difference are not that big. They basically removed the central red line and they call obstruction penality now. They are also less tolerant with hooking and other similar penalities. But now they seem to allow it more and more which is why there is a decline in the number of goals in the nhl this season. There's a bunch of other minor stuff like if there's an icing, the team causing it cannot change their players and it's not possible to go to a tv break (so that they don't have time to catch their breath). Nothing that change the game so much that you won't understand it.
The big problem with the shoot out at the moment is that there's too many game going to that point and it's not really special anymore. I think overall it helped hockey in the US (but not that much of course, Hockey is still not very popular compared to the other major sports). But if they find a way to get more goals in the game I doubt we will need that many tie-breaker and shoot out will be something special and exciting again.
I love the way they do in the playoff with games that can go to the third or fourth overtime period! But they can't really do that during the regular season...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks