Dear NHL, Please STOP Considering 3-on-3 Overtime

Nov 4, 2014; Washington, DC, USA; Calgary Flames center Sean Monahan (23) scores the game-winning goal on Washington Capitals goalie Braden Holtby (70) as Capitals left wing Alex Ovechkin (8) defends in overtime at Verizon Center. The Flames won 4-3 in overtime. Mandatory Credit: Geoff Burke-USA TODAY Sports

On the morning of July 22, 2005 newspapers around Canada and the United States included some form of the following paragraph:

"Regular-season games that are tied at the conclusion of overtime will be decided by a shootout round beginning in 2005-06, the National Hockey League announced today. The new shootout rule guarantees a winner each game; ties have been eliminated."

From what I recall of the move to “end ties”, it was the NHL was trying to lessen the flow of people leaving a game after three periods and simply skipping the overtime.  With penalty shots being a rare commodity in the NHL, the shootout was a shiny star the NHL assumed would keep peoples butts in their seats until the true end of the game.  Nowadays, penalty shots are still a rare commodity in the NHL but the shootout has lost it’s shininess.

The General Manager’s of all NHL teams had their initial winter meetings last week and one of the items on the agenda is trying to get more games to end before regulation.  I figure simply going back to tie games is a sign of failure in the eyes of big bosses that run this league so let’s tinker with the rules some more seems to be the train the thought.  The following is from “Yahoo’s Puck Daddy“:

"The GMs looked at the results of the new overtime format in the American Hockey League, but they didn’t debate the issue. The AHL now has seven minutes of OT – 4-on-4 until the first whistle after the three-minute mark, then 3-on-3.Through Nov. 10, 36 games had gone to OT in the AHL, and 30 had been decided in OT, including 14 in 3-on-3. But it’s early, and it isn’t apples to apples because the AHL’s OT is two minutes longer than the NHL’s."

PLEASE for the love and the respect of the game of hockey, do not go to a 3-on-3 overtime.  The shootout “gimmick” made sense because it was given a purpose (eliminate ties).  3-on-3 hockey is a gimmick without a purpose other than changing the face of hockey.

3-on-3 will not solve attendance problems for teams that have attendance problems.  3-on-3 will wear out it’s welcome much faster than the shootout wore out it welcome.

Maybe I’m just lucky to be a Calgary Flames fan because 4-on-4 overtimes have been exciting to watch every time they’ve happened this season.  I’m sorry the NHL brass seems to believe it’s not exciting enough but how do you positively spin the fact that you need to take player off the ice to finish games?

I repeat, the shootout had a purpose, 3-on-3 is a marketing gimmick!  Marketing gimmicks don’t work.

RESPECT THE GAME!