Written by Liam McGuire at Bloguin
When the NHL announced they’d be changing the overtime format from 4-on-4 to 3-on-3, I was excited.
I’m not as lukewarm on the shootout as other people seem to be, as it totally eliminated the tie, which made hockey games feel like they had a certain degree of pointlessness. But, it didn’t seem all that fair to go to a shootout, where goals weren’t officially scored to decide the game. Scoring in overtime is infinitely more exciting than winning a game on a novelty, and three-on-three overtime sounded absolutely bananas.
The AHL had success using a 3-on-3 model. The league had a seven-minute OT, which would start 4-on-4, but would change to 3-on-3 following the first three minutes. The move drastically cut the number of shootouts. After seeing it work well, its parent league was ready to give something similar a try. Imagining NHL players having that much open ice to play with, made the transition seem like a no-brainer.
To continue reading this article, click here.
