3-on-3 overtime

Do you want to know one of the remarkable things about how the NHL is currently run? Even though the quality of the game has never been worse, the league is still finding ways to deteriorate the entertainment value of the sport.


This season, the NHL changed the format of the 5-minute overtime period from 4-on-4 to 3-on-3. I have seen a couple of these games, and I'm not going to lie. 3-on-3 overtimes are horrible. It in no way resembles real hockey, and it means that there is no longer an opportunity for a hockey game tied in regulation to be decided by anything resembling the sport.

4-on-4 overtime is one of very few recent rule changes that I can actually defend. 4-on-4 provides a final opportunity to break a tie. It features more open ice, which increases the odds of scoring, but it also  maintains a reasonable degree of balance between offensive and defensive efforts. If the opportunity arises, a defensive played can challenge the puck carrier. This form of overtime can also be used to reduce the number of shootouts we have to suffer through.

The purpose of 3-on-3 overtimes is because the NHL admits that the shootouts are deciding too many games. 3-on-3's provide more open ice and more opportunity to score before they go to the shootout. The problem is that there is not enough protection against minor errors, and aggressive defensive has become too risky. This means the team with the puck has too much control, and the defensive team has to sit back a bit and wait for a mistake. Without any real defensive pressure, 3-on-3 overtime feels like you are watching a pre-game drill.

To make matters worse, the point for an overtime loss rewards teams for taking games into overtime. As I have already explained, teams that pursue a tie through regulation are more likely to fight over whether they get one or two points in the standings. Teams that try to decide games in regulation are more likely to fight over whether they get two points or absolutely nothing in the standings. This ultimately means that the real game is less valuable in the standings than this awful sideshow.

I don't like the shootout in the NHL. If I watch a game, I will usually suffer through the final moments to figure out how the game will be recorded in the standings. Of course, the NHL would insist that watching the shootout should be interpreted as a love of the shootout. With the 3-on-3, it feels like there is more suffering to reach a conclusion than ever before. I do not want to watch a 3-on-3 for five minutes followed by a shootout, especially when there is nothing to ease the transition from hockey to gimmick. For that reason, I have decided that I will no longer continue to watch games if they are not decided in regulation.

To make matters worse, the NHL recently announced changes to the All-Star format. This year, the NHL has decided to play three 20-minute 3-on-3 games. All four divisions will have a team in one of the two preliminary games. This will be followed by a final between the winners. If I can't handle 5 minutes, there's no way that I'm going to tune in to watch a full hour (not including stoppages such as those between games). This is supposed to be a showcase, yet the NHL is going to show the game at its worst. In all fairness, it's already considered to be the game at its worst, but this year is really going to lower the bar.