Blog Entry

Rangers, 'Canes prospects play 3-on-3 overtime

Posted on: September 13, 2011 7:56 pm
By: Adam Gretz

One of the ideas that was tested at the NHL Research and Development camp earlier this summer was three-on-three overtime, which could potentially help cut down on the number of shootouts in the NHL.

The idea, which comes from Detroit Red Wings general manager Ken Holland, would feature four minutes of four-on-four hockey, and if no goal is scored, the two teams would switch sides and play three minutes of three-on-three hockey. If the tie still isn't broken after all of that, the two teams would then go on to a shootout.

This format woud not only potentially add two minutes to the overtime period (the current NHL overtime period is five minutes, all of which are played at four-on-four, assuming there are no penalties) but it would also create more space on the ice for a significant portion of it by taking four players out of the game for the three-on-three portion. Given the additional time, as well as the extra space on the ice, it would be reasonable to expect more games be decided before a shootout would be required.

During the Traverse City prospect tournament on Tuesday, the Carolina Hurricanes and New York Rangers prospects were tied at the end of regulation, and used a variation of this overtime format (they actually played four minutes of three-on-three). The Hurricanes would win the game in the three-on-three portion, 4-3, thanks to a breakaway goal from Justin Shugg, the team's fourth-round pick in 2010 after a huge season with the Mississauga Ice Dogs of the Ontario Hockey League.

I still like the three-on-three overtime proposal, mainly because I think the extra open ice and the level of talent in the NHL would create quite a few exciting moments, probably filled with up-and-down action and odd-man rushes.

Is it another gimmick? Sure it is, and it no doubt has its share of critics from hockey traditionalists that don't want to see any sort of radical change to the way the game has been played for the past 70-plus years. But it's not quite on the level of the shootout, which is also loathed by many hockey fans since it determines a winner and loser with a skills competition after 65 minutes (regulation and overtime) of hockey. At least with the three-on-three the game is still being decided with the two teams actually playing against one another.

For more hockey news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnHockey and @agretz on Twitter.

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 15, 2011 9:42 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator

Since: Feb 11, 2009
Posted on: September 14, 2011 8:11 pm

Rangers, 'Canes prospects play 3-on-3 overtime

How about 1/2 point each for the tie and 1 point for the win, whether it's by 4 on 4, 3 on 3, shootout, coin toss, etc; just because there should be only 2 points available for any one game.

Since: Aug 10, 2011
Posted on: September 14, 2011 2:40 pm

Rangers, 'Canes prospects play 3-on-3 overtime

They should play a nice game of spades or better yet how about a game of 2 on 2 handball.....

Since: May 13, 2007
Posted on: September 14, 2011 2:16 pm

Rangers, 'Canes prospects play 3-on-3 overtime

I've said it thousands of times, what needs to happen, if you lose in regular OT, you get no points. It will give teams more of an incentive to win in OT. It used to be if you lost in OT you didn't get anything, but because they add a shootout, now you do? BS.

Here is what I would do, 10 minutes 4 on 4 OT. If there is no winner then a shootout.

I mean because we have to keep the millions of people who are now hockey fans because of the shootout, happy. /sarcasm

Since: Sep 16, 2008
Posted on: September 14, 2011 12:57 pm

Rangers, 'Canes prospects play 3-on-3 overtime

Blotto, I am literally sitting at my desk crying and laughing mao!!!!!

Since: Aug 17, 2006
Posted on: September 14, 2011 12:30 pm

Rangers, 'Canes prospects play 3-on-3 overtime

How about 2 points for a regulation win, 1 point for an OT win, and you don't get diddly-squat if you lose.  There should be no incentive to do anything but win.

Since: Jun 8, 2009
Posted on: September 14, 2011 11:55 am

Rangers, 'Canes prospects play 3-on-3 overtime

Here's an idea, after the 5 minutes of 4-on-4 are over (and still no winner) - why doesn't the NHL start adding pucks?? After 5min they could add 1 puck (so there would be 2 in play!), after another 2min add another puck, after another 2min add another puck (now there's 4 - WOW!!). Wouldn't that be exciting?? After 11min they could just empty a bucket of pucks onto the ice!!

Yup, I know it's a stupid idea and no, I'm not serious. I don't want to see the NHL watered down anymore than it has been and so I would humbly suggest calling a tie a tie and being done with it after the 5min o/t period. If anything, change the points awarded so a regulation win is worth 3, an o/t win 2, and a tie is worth 1 - if you lose you get nothing.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or