Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

[blazer777]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

Not the NCAA, the B1G.

Not those guys again!

[UncleRay]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

I generally agree with you, but I think that the main problem here is the incentives involved. Struggling teams have an incentive to grapple for a tie (see: WCHA 2015-16), but even then the incentive is there to hold on for the point. If teams are granted a point purely for getting to OT, with a chance for one or two more based on your point scoring system of choice, the calculus changes and coaches will have an incentive to go for the higher result. I think that encouraging a team to change its style of play — less trapping/obstructing/interfering, more trying to score a dang goal — is a better way to decide a game and more in line with how you'd actually coach a game with strategy (aggressive forecheck, pinching D, etc.).

But if you're still in 2-1-0 rather than 4-3-2-1-0, 4v4 as a tactic to end games decisively is acceptable if not palatable. As you can tell, I prefer to change the incentives.

GFM

Then that would be how the team plays for the whole game. My objection to changing the makeup of who hits the ice for OT remains. Two teams have developed strategies that they believe will win them the game. They play the game and the two strategies have proven to be equal. Now you and I may believe that one strategy is "better" or "more noble," but the fact remains that they have come up equal. Why should one strategy get preferential treatment in trying to break the tie?

[MadTownSioux]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

I'm not one to blame my phone for typos, but thanks for catching it.

Sorry. I may be a little anal about superfluous apostrophes.

[gfmorris]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

Then that would be how the team plays for the whole game. My objection to changing the makeup of who hits the ice for OT remains. Two teams have developed strategies that they believe will win them the game. They play the game and the two strategies have proven to be equal. Now you and I may believe that one strategy is "better" or "more noble," but the fact remains that they have come up equal. Why should one strategy get preferential treatment in trying to break the tie?

I'm not sure that teams so much play as to win but as to not lose. I'm perhaps biased by watching a lot of WCHA games last year.

GFM

[joecct]

I'm not sure that teams so much play as to win but as to not lose. I'm perhaps biased by watching a lot of WCHA games last year.

GFM

First to 2 goals wins!!!

[gfmorris]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

First to 2 goals wins!!!

:heavy heavy heavy sigh:

GFM

[UncleRay]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

I'm not sure that teams so much play as to win but as to not lose. I'm perhaps biased by watching a lot of WCHA games last year.

GFM

Regardless of what they "play for" they've been evenly matched. Why uneven the playing field? I'm not arguing against taking the game to 4-on-4. I'm saying if 4-on-4 is the way to go in OT to "open the ice up," then it is the way to go for the full 60.

[gfmorris]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

Regardless of what they "play for" they've been evenly matched. Why uneven the playing field? I'm not arguing against taking the game to 4-on-4. I'm saying if 4-on-4 is the way to go in OT to "open the ice up," then it is the way to go for the full 60.

I agree; I'm arguing for changing the incentives and not the playing style. 4v4 is more free-wheeling, and I guess that's fun to watch, provided that your team has speed/hands. But yeah, why change that?

GFM <— always finds discussing with UncleRay funny since, well, his only parental sibling is a Ray...

[Bale]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

So, this is a legitimate question cause I'm not familiar with the rules process, how does a rule change get proposed to the committee and how does it pass through? What I'm meaning is that I see peoplease blaming the B10, and I'm not sure why. Did the B10 try to ram this through and go directly even thought the coaches are overwhelmingly against it? Or is this just a case of pepole scapegoating the B10 because they are an easy target?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

So, this is a legitimate question cause I'm not familiar with the rules process, how does a rule change get proposed to the committee and how does it pass through? What I'm meaning is that I see peoplease blaming the B10, and I'm not sure why. Did the B10 try to ram this through and go directly even thought the coaches are overwhelmingly against it? Or is this just a case of pepole scapegoating the B10 because they are an easy target?

A committee composed of representatives from all four college hockey divisions (D-I and D-III, men's and women's) reviews the rule book every two years, and based on how games have been going, as well as things that have made the news, propose changes to the rule book. They are released for consideration and comment (usually coaches will weigh in, keyboard cowboys on here will talk about it although it doesn't have too much emphasis if any, etc.), and voted for approval in the middle of July (so nothing's been "rammed through" yet). It's not a pure "rubber stamp", either, as there have been times where rule changes were very unpopular and either limited to exhibition play or removed entirely, one big example being when they tried to enforce icing rules while a team was on the PK.

In this case, the Big Roll-a-20 truly is a scapegoat (although it's become a bit of a recurring thing on here). With the 4v4 OT, it seems like they're trying to go less towards the professional route and more towards the IIHF route, where they do use 4v4 OT and have a special point consideration for a regulation tie. Obviously they can't go pure IIHF and shun the North American style of play (after all, that's where we are), but are trying to find a good hybrid.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

My solution:

1. 5x5 OT
2. Shoot-out ala NHL rules.

Conference points for standings

5 - regulation win
4 - OT win
3 - SO win
2 - SO loss
1 - OT loss
0 - regulation loss

And frankly, there's your weightings for RPI also (OT win worth 80% of regulation win; SO win worth 60% of regulation win).

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

How about 5x5 overtime without goalies?

Sean

Love it.

Sean, your analysis is great. One factor you could throw in is what Brad Schlossman of the GF Herald has been watching: the decline in total goals per game.

In the late 1980s games would average 9+ total goals.
Lately you're lucky to get 9+ total goals in a two-game weekend series.

I don't like trend toward becoming soccer (every game ends 1-0).

[Bale]

A committee composed of representatives from all four college hockey divisions (D-I and D-III, men's and women's) reviews the rule book every two years, and based on how games have been going, as well as things that have made the news, propose changes to the rule book. They are released for consideration and comment (usually coaches will weigh in, keyboard cowboys on here will talk about it although it doesn't have too much emphasis if any, etc.), and voted for approval in the middle of July (so nothing's been "rammed through" yet). It's not a pure "rubber stamp", either, as there have been times where rule changes were very unpopular and either limited to exhibition play or removed entirely, one big example being when they tried to enforce icing rules while a team was on the PK.

In this case, the Big Roll-a-20 truly is a scapegoat (although it's become a bit of a recurring thing on here). With the 4v4 OT, it seems like they're trying to go less towards the professional route and more towards the IIHF route, where they do use 4v4 OT and have a special point consideration for a regulation tie. Obviously they can't go pure IIHF and shun the North American style of play (after all, that's where we are), but are trying to find a good hybrid.

Thank you. I thought it was a scapegoat issue but wasn't sure. I'm no B10 sympathizer, but also dont think it pays to blame an organization/person when they aren't at fault. Legitimate gripes end up losing because of it (ie boy crying wolf). I suppose having Anastos as the spokesman/chairan doesn't really help their cause as people just start making assumptions.

As to the rule itself, I'm all about preparing kids for the next step in their career. Afterall, that's what college is all about, right? If this prepares them for that next step, then by all means change it. If it doesnt, leave it as is.

[joecct]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

My solution:

1. 5x5 OT
2. Shoot-out ala NHL rules.

Conference points for standings

5 - regulation win
4 - OT win
3 - SO win
2 - SO loss
1 - OT loss
0 - regulation loss

And frankly, there's your weightings for RPI also (OT win worth 80% of regulation win; SO win worth 60% of regulation win).

IIHF shootout. Keep using the same guy for the sudden death rounds.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

IIHF shootout. Keep using the same guy for the sudden death rounds.

There's no rule stating you have to do that. However, there's no rule stating you can't. Unless, of course, the Oshie rule is necessary...