Purists can breathe easy.

Homework will be done, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said, but hockey will not be undergoing any major changes this summer. Overtime will not be revamped, despite a cry from general managers at this week’s meetings in Florida to decrease the number of shootouts.

If Flyers veterans Kimmo Timonen and Scott Hartnell are any representation of their peers, players are fine with that. The game has to end sometime, Timonen said Tuesday.

Let’s suppose, for a second, that the NHL would be open to change. Why not be bold and think outside the box?

Skill should remain the focus, like it is during shootouts. Fans and broadcast rights holders love the shootout - which provides a quick way to produce a winner in a dramatic fashion while conforming to time restraints. That’s why it isn’t going anywhere.

Hockey is the ultimate team sport, though. And the typical shootout - which ends nearly 13 per cent of games since 2005 - involves less than a quarter of the roster.

Extending overtime from its current five minutes of four-on-four play to an additional five minutes of three-on-three play should a goal not be scored will not fix the problem. It’s not real hockey, anyway.

Rather than continuing to invent tweaks to avoid the shootout, why not remove it all together? It’s possible, though, the NHL’s brain trust hasn’t considered every option.

I can’t even take credit for this one brilliant idea that came from a reader, Steve, from Cherry Hill, NJ, who dropped a four-sentence bomb in my inbox that got my mind racing Wednesday. He proposed an overtime setup not all that different from NCAA football - where teams trade possessions until one is able to score either a touchdown or field goal while successfully defending an attempt to match.

Doing it Steve’s way, each team would be given two minutes to score on a five-on-three power play. The only way to win would be to score in a two-minute sequence and then back it up with a successful penalty kill.

If both teams score, the sequence would be restarted. A shorthanded goal, though rare, would immediately end the game. No TV timeouts and just a 30-second break would be needed between sequences, which with a goal would not require the full two minutes.

A quick look at the data suggests that a winner would be produced pretty quickly. Even the longest of overtimes in this case probably wouldn’t require more than three sequences to decide a game.

Teams are much more likely to score than they are on a regular power play, where the league average is 17.3 per cent. This season, there have been 83 goals scored in 283 five-on-three advantages (29.3 per cent leaguewide).

That number is actually on the lower end than it may appear, since teams sometimes have only 15-30 seconds on five-on-three play before a penalty expires, yet those situations are still counted as five-on-three opportunities. Every team except for the Stars and Sabres has scored five-on-three this season. No scenario is perfect. But Steve’s setup would solve a lot of the shootout’s problems - and the fears of general managers around the league.

Yes, star players would be playing additional time in overtime, but there is far less skating and hitting in a five-on-three situation. Almost every player on the roster - from the star scorer to the gritty penalty killer to the gutty goalie - would be involved in the outcome of overtime. Specialists would be rewarded. Coaches can get creative. And teams may benefit in regulation play from the practice. This way, we could actually decide hockey games with real hockey.

 

 

 

 

Related Story