A Different Type of Playoff Article, Shootout Vs Overtime Debate

Refusing to be one of too many writers that think they have some sort of magic 8-ball of playoff predictions, I searched for another way to talk about something relevant to the playoffs. I came up with an interesting question that will hopefully spawn a good debate. Is it fair to have a different format for deciding a tie game in the regular season than in the playoffs?

In the regular season, a game that is tied goes to 5 minutes of sudden death overtime and then a best-of-three shootout. In the playoffs however, if the game is tied after regulation then full 20 minute overtime periods are played until one team scores. Is this switching of systems fair to the players, coaching, and players?

Here are the three options I came up with in regards to the system to resolve ties at the end of regulation.

Revert back to the old system without the shootout and a longer OT period during the regular season. Pros include better preparing the players for the playoff system and giving a sense of consistency. This system would also eliminate the soft two points that are guaranteed each game, but more on that later. The main con would be it is hard for casual hockey fans to sit through three periods of 20 minutes, let alone the addition of another full period of OT. It also takes more of a toll on the players that have to play another game the next day. Additionally it strikes a problem with the broadcasters who will either have to blackout the game or end up not showing the shows that would normally be scheduled, especially in the playoffs.

Option two is to introduce the shootout into the playoffs. This will ruffle the feathers of most hockey traditionalists, including me. This option has a similar pro to reverting back to the old system because it would give some sense of continuity from the regular season to the playoffs. A shootout system would also keep casual fans interested to watch the game all the way through because it will not likely last until one o’clock in the morning like some triple OT games can. One of cons for this idea would be it takes away some of the tradition of the game. It also eliminates the hero status for that guy who scores the triple-overtime winner.

The NHL could also leave the system as it stands now. The pro as far as I can see is I am the only one to bring this up as a problem, no one else seems to mind the current system so why fix what no one has a problem with. A con would be a skewed regular season point system. A team that wins 40+ games in the regular season makes it to the playoffs but gets swept in 4 games because they no longer have the luxury of the shootout which provided them with 10 of those wins. It is entirely plausible that if given the extra OT time they could have won those 10 games anyway, but not that likely. Teams also seem to not even bother playing the 5 minutes of OT during the regular season, it seems like they are just playing for the shootout.

Those are the options I am proposing and hopefully they will spark some sort of call for continuity from regular season to playoffs. Personally I would also hate to see the shootout go because it is very exciting to watch, however the abundance of “.500+” teams and wins from the shootout seem to be painting a picture that some teams are better than they actually are. On the other hand, I am a hockey traditionalist and I could not stand the NHL changing the game anymore than they already have.