How do you feel about shootouts?

It has been said by several silly people that the only fans who don't like shootouts are the fans of teams that are bad in them.

The Detroit Red Wings are undefeated in shootouts this season. They currently have 6 wins and 0 losses via shootouts. I am a Wings fan. I don't like shootouts. What does everyone else think?

#5..ALL OF THE ABOVE!

Shootouts have absolutely nothing to do with the game that has just been played, after a hard fought game, its sad that they have to decide a winner this way, I say keep the tie, this is hockey, sometimes its just a tie, and this is real hockey. Also there's no way that you could classify those two points in the same way that another team would earn two points by dominating their opponent and winning the game 5-1, bring back the ties.

The Flyers suck at them but I'd still hate the concept even they were good at the shootouts. I also don't like a team getting a point for and OT or Shootout loss either! It totally confuses fans like Holy Diver who think the Islanders are only slightly under .500!

I hate shootouts,they should play an overtime period and then the game would end in a tie.Baseball does not end a tie game with a home run hitting contest,it is the same thing.

Shootouts are awful.


Ties are just as bad, imo. You know what they say about ties.

Just play an OT period of 4-on-4. If the game is still tied at the end, go to an OT period of 3-on-3.

OR make the original OT period 10 minutes instead of 5. A team is bound to score with 10 minutes of 4-on-4.

Shootouts suck unless Chicago gets an excellent shootout goalie.

The old ties were b.s. and so were the infinite sudden death OTs.    4 on 4 for 10 minutes and then a shootout I say.

I just freakin blows that teams don't want to end things in regulation.

I just freakin blows that teams don't want to end things in regulation.

Unfortunately teams don't need to worry about ending anything during regulation, they get an automatic point for just getting to overtime. 

As long as the NHL continues to reward teams with points just for getting to overtime nothing will change.  

In and of them selves, I think they are a thing of beauty and very entertaining, but they should have nothing to do with determining the outcome of a hockey game. They should stay in the All-Star Skills competition where they belong.
Awarding a team a point for loosing a game just doesnt seem right to me. After 60 and tied; 4 on 4 for atleast 10 min. of sudden death.  And dont throw the whistles out the window if there's a penalty in OT...4 on 3 works for me to. If tied after OT, I dont have a problem with each team getting 1 point. 1 point apiece ties would suck, but not as bad as the 3 point games.

Shootouts suck unless Chicago gets an excellent shootout goalie.

We've got one, his name is Jimmy Howard and we'd love to make him a Hawk !!  

All it's going to take is Toews to make that happen and he's all yours  

The problem with extending the overtime to 10 minutes is that its a hard sell with the union, plus, if a team has a back to back, and then goes on to lose the next day to a well rested team that didn't play the night before, alot of rucus might come of it.

The problem with extending the overtime to 10 minutes is that its a hard sell with the union, plus, if a team has a back to back, and then goes on to lose the next day to a well rested team that didn't play the night before, alot of rucus might come of it.

It may be a hard sell to the union but 5 minutes added to a 55 minute game seems like a minor adjustment in my opinion. Now if you played an entire 20 minute period with a full intermission I can see that being an issue.

I'm not sure what the players prefer.   I do know that the owners prefer less OT because it's not worth anything to them and may actually cost them more.   Many players have said they like the shootout, there has been little opposition to it because of the lack of a good alternative.  Maybe we'll find out during the CBA negotiations.   
I would prefer an extended 4 on 4 session as opposed to 3 on 3 or shootout.   I'm not interested in regular season 5 on 5 OT.
Back to the original question, my feelings about the shootouts can be bought.   I'm talking to you Gary.

It's very simple, award 3 points in every game. A team gets 3 points for winning in regulation or winning in overtime (whether it's 5 or 10 minutes) and the losing team gets no points. If it goes to a shootout, the winning team gets 2 and the losing team gets 1.

This is such a simple solution and at least tries to please both sides of the argument of hating ties vs hating shootouts.

It's not worth anything to them and may actually cost them more

Hmm, not so sure about that, let's say you added another 5 minutes, that would be 10 all together, plus a shootout, this is game minutes. If you figure by the time the regualtion time ends to the time they play 10 minutes and then you add in a shootout, this could keep people in the buidling another half an hour, let's take an original six building (19,000 fans), that's another 30 minutes of fans buying up overpriced concessions(popcorn,beer,hotdogs), doesn't seem like much, but it outweighs the costs.

The shootouts for the players I see more of an ego thing, hey , they're picking me, let me go do my job, its just they way they think, but extending the overtime might be an issue, where do you draw the line? In another 5-10 years, they could be asking to add another 5 minutes, maybe make it sudden-death. 

The players have been against longer OTs for more than 20 years, and the owners hated the costs associated with messed up travel schedules and other logistic difficulties.   Once beer sales were prohibited late in games in almost every arena 10 to 12 years ago (much longer in other places)  the owners were very comfortable with wrapping up the games as early as possible.    If the owners were making money on concessions or tv in OT, it never would have changed OT format.  

that's another 30 minutes of fans buying up overpriced concessions(popcorn,beer,hotdogs), doesn't seem like much, but it outweighs the costs.

That's what I assumed, but it turns out that the operating costs and logistic costs actually made everything more expensive for the owners.   It was a significant issue when they worked out the last CBA.    Besides, most teams have concessions contracted, so that there is nothing to gain by extended concession sales anyway.    The contract is a per game basis, and the volume of sales is the responsibility of the the company that buys the concession rights.    Owners don't care too much about concessions.    Alcohol is a little different in some arena, but I haven't kept up with the recent contract changes the last few years.
 

Wasn't sure about how the concessions worked, if the owners are against it then I can't see the players fighting for longer ot's, then I can't see it going through. Wrapping up games as quick as possible is in the interest of teams that are playing the next night, especially if they have to fly out, another 5 minutes won't hurt much, but I think they'll want to draw the line, if anything I see them debating wether to take out the shootouts and going back to ending the 5 min ot with the tie. 

It's simple: If the game is still tied at the end of regulation the team with the better looking jerseys wins the game. So instead of the Wings being 6-0 after OT, they'd be 6-0 after OT.

I picked "suck and blow" by the way.

A tie is better than the current format.  100% against a point for any type of loss.  If a team knew there was no point for a loss, I think there would be a lot more effort and try to avoid a collapse or comeback.