According to this article, Men's D-1 coaches were almost universally opposed to the proposed changes. Although the article is Connecticut centric, some very good points were made.
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.”
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.”
