NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

[joecct]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

Sean

What would reduce the number of OT games even further would be going to a 3-2-1-0 points system.

Any game decided 5x5 - winner gets 3 points.

Any game decided via 4x4/3x3/SO is a 2-1 point distribution.

[Sean Pickett]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

Over in the Hockey East: 2019/20 season is Joe Bertagna's last as commish there has been talk of changing overtime since the new HE Commisioner-in-waiting stated that the NCAA needs to standardize overtime and reduce ties. Since I had originally posted some NHL numbers in this thread and I though I would repost what I posted in that thread for those that might not read every thread on this board.

I had already researched the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons when the NHL went from 4x4 overtime to 3x3 overtime, so I also researched when the NHL went from 5x5 overtime to 4x4 overtime. I also researched the NHL's results for this season and I don't see that more games going to shootouts this season then in 2015-16.



As can be seen the last season the NHL had 5x5 overtime nearly 75% of games that went to overtime remained tied. Going to 4x4 overtime dropped that to 56% remaining tied, which is also the same percentage for the last season the NHL had 4x4 overtime. Going to 3x3 overtime dropped the number of games that remained tied down to 39% in 2015-16 and currently 35% this season. So, in the NHL 3x3 overtime has reduced the number of ties by about 35%. So, if those percentages held for NCAA games 18-19 of the 109 would have been decided by 4x4 and 37 would have been decided by 3x3. Looking at the 4 leagues that play an extra 3x3 overtime period they have played 77 overtimes to-date, 52 (67.5%) which remained tied after the 5x5 overtime period. After the extra 3x3 overtime period 25 (32.5%) still remained tied. That is 35% less ties between 5x5 and 3x3 overtimes, about the same as the drop seen by the NHL. I find it interesting that the percentage of tied games after the 5x5 overtime in those leagues was higher, 67.5%, than the 55.4% of overtime games played without a second 3x3 overtime following that remained tied. It seems that the players and coaches in those leagues have gotten more conservative to try and insure they will get both points in league play and not take a loss that could affect their PWR rating.

Sean

[CrazyDave]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-m..._tw_sf31381261

[Ralph Baer]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

BREAKING: NCAA Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules Committee tables 4-on-4 OT rule. #NCAAHockey

— Ken Schott (@slapschotts) July 20, 2016

[CrazyDave]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

The meeting of the Playing Rules Oversight Panel is Wednesday. They've rejected recommendations in the past, such as always-on icing.

[OnMAA]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

The game is constantly evolving, and we all get accustomed to the changes. I recall two-line passes being illegal, and a hard whistle for offsides without the ability to clear the zone and keep playing. Teams used to change their personnel even after an icing call, and coincidental penalties resulted in a 4x4.

All of these rule changes had detractors at the time, but now they are considered part of the game.

I think 3x3 is exciting, even though it changes the strategy completely. Whereas 5x5 rewards the team with more depth and stronger systems, 3x3 rewards speed and creativity. Not a bad thing.

Agreed. I might be an old timer, but like the concept of change to make things more exciting. I much prefer an outcome to be solved by a 3x3 or 4x4 OT than a shootout. For regular season I would vote for 5 minutes 4on4 or 3on3 and then call it a day. Agree that for playoffs we should stay with the true and tried method of overtime 5x5 until a goal is scored. Some of the more memorable games in the last few years are those long OT games, including the championship game between Cornell and UofM, and that wild 7-7 game between BU and Cornell where there were tons of goals in regulation including two three goal deficit comebacks, and then it took another 3 periods to get it to 8-7.

[Skate79]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

Huh? Not sure how what you were responding to related in anyway to what your response was. The season is shorter, a single loss or win would make a much bigger change in a 30 game season than an 82 game season. What part of that suggest anything like "everyone gets a trophy"?

I was addressing how they are treating an OT loss in terms of giving partial credit. Why? How do you give partial credit? Doesn't make sense to me. The number of games in college hockey has been more or less the same for eons. Let's not make OT some convoluted formula that somehow winds up rewarding a team that has 10 or more ties.

[ne7minder]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

So are we now grading on a curve so that if you manage to keep the OT scoreless until the last minute, you get some kind of 'partial' credit even if you lose? This is beginning to resemble the 'give a trophy to the sixth place finisher' mentality that is becoming the norm in youth sports. While we are at it, why don't we reward teams where the third pairing D scores the OT winner and punish the loser. That'll show 'em.

Huh? Not sure how what you were responding to related in anyway to what your response was. The season is shorter, a single loss or win would make a much bigger change in a 30 game season than an 82 game season. What part of that suggest anything like "everyone gets a trophy"?

[Skate79]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

College hockey differs from the NHL in several other areas, most notably that its 34-game regular season is roughly 60 percent shorter. College hockey also relies on an algorithm, not league standings, to determine its playoff field. It would tweak the system so that overtime wins won’t carry as much value while a team that loses in OT gets partial credit. One loss in a vastly shorter season could have far greater impact on a college team than an NHL team.

So are we now grading on a curve so that if you manage to keep the OT scoreless until the last minute, you get some kind of 'partial' credit even if you lose? This is beginning to resemble the 'give a trophy to the sixth place finisher' mentality that is becoming the norm in youth sports. While we are at it, why don't we reward teams where the third pairing D scores the OT winner and punish the loser. That'll show 'em.

[pokechecker]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

Allain said. “To me it’s like these people don’t like the game of hockey, so they’re trying to recreate it. After 60, 65 minutes of a hard-fought game, a tie sometimes is the right result. They believe there are too many ties in college hockey. Well, says who? They say people complain scoring’s down. Says who? I like to score goals but sometimes a 1-0 game is just as exciting as a 6-5 game. Anyone that understands our sport knows that.”

lots of good things said in the above, especially this

[LTsatch]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

Interesting article about what the D-1 coaches in CT think of the proposal, I did not know that the coaches nationwide were pretty much universally against the changes. Some very valid points in the article.

State college hockey coaches oppose new overtime proposal
By Chip Malafronte, New Haven Register
POSTED: 07/06/16, 9:35 PM EDT | UPDATED: 7 HRS AGO 0 COMMENTS
NEW HAVEN >> When the NCAA ice hockey rules committee last month recommended that overtime games during the regular season be played with four skaters to each side, it went against the overwhelming opinion of its coaching body.

At the annual convention in April, the 60 Division I hockey coaches were nearly unanimous in voting against a proposal to change the current regular season overtime format: 5-on-5 for five minutes.

The rules committee ignored that vote and moved forward with its proposal anyway. It’s now up to the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel, which could make the change official on July 20. If passed, the new rule would be implemented for the coming season.

Coaches may lobby against the proposal for the next two weeks in hopes of persuading a veto from the panel. Three of the state’s four Division I men’s coaches — Yale’s Keith Allain, Quinnipiac’s Rand Pecknold and UConn’s Mike Cavanaugh — said this week they believe 4-on-4 overtime sessions are a mistake.

Sacred Heart’s C.J. Marottolo is one of the few coaches in the country who favors a switch.

Allain believes it’s an unnecessary change and is troubled that the rules committee ignored the consensus opinion to pass a rule coaches have been opposed to for several years.

“I think it’s outrageous,” Allain said. “They’ve been trying to jam this down our throat for the last four or five years. I don’t know who has this agenda. People in college hockey are fine with the way it’s being played right now. There are some people on the committee who decided they know what’s best for the rest of us and kind of ran this through. It’s really disappointing.”

Michigan State coach Tom Anastos, chairman of the rules committee, released a statement last month explaining reasons for the proposition.

“It is clear that goal scoring is continuing to trend down,” Anastos said. “After a thorough discussion of the overtime process, and seeing the success experienced by the National Hockey League and others using four-on-four, we believe this change will be a positive step for NCAA hockey.”

There are inconsistencies in Anastos’ reasoning. The new rule would only affect scoring overtime games, but 76 percent of regular season games played in 2015-16 were decided in regulation.

The numbers also show scoring has remained relatively unchanged over the past 10 years. Mike McMahon, writing for College Hockey News, reported Division I scoring hasn’t dipped significantly. Teams averaged 2.92 goals-per game in 2005-06 and 2.94 in 2010-11. Over the past five seasons, according to McMahon, that average has fluctuated between 2.71 and 2.80. There were slightly more goals scored in 2015-16 than the previous season.

More importantly, the proposed change still doesn’t get college hockey in line with the NHL, which no longer accepts ties and uses 3-on-3 for five minutes followed by shootouts in every regular season overtime game. College games, under the new rule, can still end in a tie.

College hockey differs from the NHL in several other areas, most notably that its 34-game regular season is roughly 60 percent shorter. College hockey also relies on an algorithm, not league standings, to determine its playoff field. It would tweak the system so that overtime wins won’t carry as much value while a team that loses in OT gets partial credit. One loss in a vastly shorter season could have far greater impact on a college team than an NHL team.

“Right now, if you lose in OT it’s a loss, if you win in OT it’s a win,” Allain said. “Because they realize this is a gimmick, if you lose in overtime you get 25 percent of a win. If win in OT you get 75 percent of a win. They know it’s not hockey. From a competitive standpoint, it doesn’t make sense to award points in the standings toward a national championship berth based on a gimmick.”

Cavanaugh believes there should be consistency between overtime rules in the regular season and the postseason.

“I think the five-on-five overtime is a skill you have to learn to play; it’s different than five-on-five in regulation in that one turnover can cost you a game,” Cavanaugh said. “If you’re going to go a long way in the national tournament, your team has to be comfortable playing an overtime game. If we do away with the 5-on-5 overtime, the first time any of us will be playing it is in the national tournament. That’s something I really don’t like.”

Alterations to the overtime format have been discussed by the coaches in the past, though any perceived proliferation of ties hasn’t been viewed as problematic enough to enact change.

Last season, 35 percent of Quinnipiac’s games went to overtime (12-of-34), well above the national average of 24 percent. The Bobcats won four of those games, lost one and tied seven. Pecknold isn’t opposed to a change of overtime format, but believes there’s a better solution than the 4-on-4 proposal.

“I think the NCAA should make the overtime longer,” Pecknold said. “Extend it to 10 minutes or at least eight minutes. With the new rule of having the teams with the long change, similar to the second period, I think you would get more goals and avoid ties. I feel strongly that would be a better option that what we currently use or 4-on-4.”

Allain worries that the rules committee is angling to eventually mirror the NHL’s current 3-on-3 overtime format.

“That’s probably their end game,” Allain said. “To me it’s like these people don’t like the game of hockey, so they’re trying to recreate it. After 60, 65 minutes of a hard-fought game, a tie sometimes is the right result. They believe there are too many ties in college hockey. Well, says who? They say people complain scoring’s down. Says who? I like to score goals but sometimes a 1-0 game is just as exciting as a 6-5 game. Anyone that understands our sport knows that.”

[Skate79]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

I will never understand why a tie, in regular season play, should not remain as a tie. If the purpose of regular season points is to determine eligibility for playoffs, a split in points in a tie game is a better reflection of regular season success/failure than a toss of the dice in overtime / shootout. A tie is an honourable outcome for a game...an indication that two teams fought hard and neither proved to be dominant on that evening. It is only when you get to playoffs, where one team, and only one team must advance that it is necessary to break a tie game. It is only the commercialization of the game at the pro level that has led to this insane need to always send one team home as winner and another as loser. The NHL used to have no overtime in regular season...but that was before it became an entertainment industry first, and a sport second.

I agree with your points with some reservations. The Harvard men a few years ago played 13 ties. While it may have helped them get into the playoffs, the games were not all that interesting after a while. It can get tedious. Then you have the Harvard-UMD series at Bright Landry in the 09'-10' season where they played a 0-0 tie that was one of the best women's games I've seen in a long time. I'm not intentionally fence sitting here; just pointing out that you can look at this from both sides.

I'm in favor of 3 on 3 OT. Let your best face their best and see who wins. Can't stand shootouts so I hope they never adopt that in the ECAC.

[D2D]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

If everyone agrees that 5x5 is the best hockey, then just stick with that. No gimmicks at all. If after 65 minutes the teams are equal, then just leave it that way. There isn't some pressing need to declare someone was "better".

Minnesota lost the WCHA title to Wisconsin on the basis of the Badgers doing better in a shootout versus UND...Stupid as shootouts are, at least those outcomes are ignored by the selection committee.

I should have clarified that the suggested 4x4 and 3x3 five minute OT sessions would only be worth an extra point in the league standings, regular season only. As is the case currently with shootouts, the outcomes would be ignored by the selection committee. This will probably never happen; just stating my preference.

[ARM]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

Regular season play 4x4 for 5 minutes, then 3x3 for 5 minutes, then if still no score it's a tie.

If everyone agrees that 5x5 is the best hockey, then just stick with that. No gimmicks at all. If after 65 minutes the teams are equal, then just leave it that way. There isn't some pressing need to declare someone was "better".

Minnesota lost the WCHA title to Wisconsin on the basis of the Badgers doing better in a shootout versus UND. Would you want your team getting knocked out of the NCAA Tournament because they lost a game in a 3x3 OT? I wouldnt' want anyone's season to end because of such nonsense. Stupid as shootouts are, at least those outcomes are ignored by the selection committee.

[D2D]

Re: NCAA Committee Recommends Change To Overtime In 2016-17

My hot take on this is 3x3 overtime is the $#!+ and I'm all for it during the regular season. 4x4 first and then 3x3 is fine too. End in a tie after that; no shootouts.

5x5 unlimited OT for the playoffs is a must, though, but that's probably never going to go away.

I'm with Grant on this one. Regular season play 4x4 for 5 minutes, then 3x3 for 5 minutes, then if still no score it's a tie. No shootouts!