Rule Changes

[Red Cloud]

Re: Rule Changes

What do you do for OT ties then? 1.5 points each?

1 each. I thought that was blatantly obvious, but I guess sometimes you've got to use the 2x4 method to get points across.


Without a Peer sounds off on PK icing and CTH.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Rule Changes

Win: 3
Win in OT: 2
Tie: 1
Lose: NOTHING.

That'll inspire some teams.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Rule Changes

Win: 3
Win in OT: 2
Tie: 1
Lose: BEATINGS.

That'll inspire some teams.

Fixed your post.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes

Fixed your post.

That could be interesting, and then add a multiplier for the differential in number of goals.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Rule Changes

Win: 2
Tie: 1
Loss: 0
Don't like it: Go cry me a river, Nancy

 

[The Rube]

Re: Rule Changes

Win: 2
Tie: 1
Loss: 0
Don't like it: Go cry me a river, Nancy

That's what I would love too, but it's not gonna stay like that.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Rule Changes

That's what I would love too, but it's not gonna stay like that.

I just don't understand life.

What the hell is so wrong with doing what makes sense?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes

I think that even if they were to institute a special points system for overtime that we would still have teams playing for the tie in regulation. I think the only way we can really fully eliminate the playing for a tie is to get rid of ties altogether. Of course then you could also ask with all of these thoughts, why is there regular season overtime in the first place? I would keep the overtime if we really wanted a winner/loser (like in the playoffs, naturally), but if there's a way to end in a tie, might as well just end in regulation.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes

I just don't understand life.

What the hell is so wrong with doing what makes sense?

Ask Sheryl Crow. Her song: "A Change will do you Good"

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Rule Changes

Ask Sheryl Crow. Her song: "A Change will do you Good"

This is teetering on the edge of you surrendering your man card.

 

[Jeff_Jackson_for_Pres.]

Re: Rule Changes

Holy crap. The NCAA does bear a brain and pulls the shorthanded icing rule change. A wise man changes his mind, but a fool never does. Nice to know there are more wise men than fools.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Rule Changes

Holy crap. The NCAA does bear a brain and pulls the shorthanded icing rule change. A wise man changes his mind, but a fool never does. Nice to know there are more wise men than fools.

Just like favre retiring, I'll believe it when I see it (or in this case, I suppose it would be "not see it")

 

[CLS]

Re: Rule Changes

Holy crap. The NCAA does bear a brain and pulls the shorthanded icing rule change. A wise man changes his mind, but a fool never does. Nice to know there are more wise men than fools

Just like favre retiring, I'll believe it when I see it (or in this case, I suppose it would be "not see it")

You'll believe what when you see it? That the NCAA bears a brain, that they've pulled the proposed shorthanded icing rule, or that there are more wise people than fools? I believe one of the statements. The other two, not so much.

 

[Jeff_Jackson_for_Pres.]

Re: Rule Changes

You'll believe what when you see it? That the NCAA bears a brain, that they've pulled the proposed shorthanded icing rule, or that there are more wise people than fools? I believe one of the statements. The other two, not so much.

I was thinking the exact same thing and wondering if I should've changed my post. Intelligence is usually a fleeting trait of those in charge, so it's nice to see it on the rare occasion that it is employed. I love Forrest Karr's face-saving. I'd also love to know who the idiot coaches were who were actually in favor of this.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Rule Changes

You'll believe what when you see it? That the NCAA bears a brain, that they've pulled the proposed shorthanded icing rule, or that there are more wise people than fools? I believe one of the statements. The other two, not so much.

That they actually listened to <strike>fans</strike> someone and pulled the rule.

Wait, which one do you believe? And I hope it's the icing option...

 

[Patman]

Re: Rule Changes

Holy crap. The NCAA does bear a brain and pulls the shorthanded icing rule change. A wise man changes his mind, but a fool never does. Nice to know there are more wise men than fools.

The short hand icing rule isn't the wrong idea... the wrong idea is no-change icing.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Rule Changes

The short hand icing rule isn't the wrong idea... the wrong idea is no-change icing.

Both icing rules (to eliminate the short handed exception for icing AND eliminating no-change icing) would be stupid, in my book.

But, so is the shootout.

 

[Jeff_Jackson_for_Pres.]

Re: Rule Changes

The short hand icing rule isn't the wrong idea... the wrong idea is no-change icing.

I'm okay with no change because it prevents a team from going into a defensive shell and icing the puck with a 1-0 lead for half the game. This ain't soccer...

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Rule Changes

I'm okay with no change because it prevents a team from going into a defensive shell and icing the puck with a 1-0 lead for half the game. This ain't soccer...

And most of the NCAA isn't the CCHA. I don't recall ever seeing a team icing repeatedly to protect a lead.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Rule Changes

And most of the NCAA isn't the CCHA. I don't recall ever seeing a team icing repeatedly to protect a lead.

1997 ECAC Final: Cornell 2, Clarkson 1. Cornell went up 2-0 9 minutes into the 2nd period, and I swear they iced the puck about 15 or 20 times over the remaining 31 minutes of play. At least it felt that way....