Sidney Crosby would have all kinds of extra ice in the new overtime. -- GETTY

June 23, 2015

News/views: Crosby welcomes 3-on-3 OT

News: NHL general managers agreed at a Tuesday night meeting in Las Vegas on shifting to a three-on-three overtime format for the 2015-16 season. Should the league’s Board of Governors agree to this decision Wednesday, it will officially be a go for this fall. A shootout will still follow if no goals are scored in the overtime session.

Views: Well, this is one way to generate more scoring, even if it feels like a gimmick. I suspect the three-on-three format will ultimately be viewed in a similar fashion to shootouts. There will be a segment of hockey purists who absolutely hate it. But, much like the shootout, the majority of fans will absolutely be entertained by it.

I assure you one person in particular is happy right now. Perhaps the longest conversation I ever had with Sidney Crosby was during the lockout in December of 2012. I asked him, simply out of curiosity, what changes he would make to enhance the game. Without hesitation, he told me he’d love a three-on-three overtime.

Crosby didn’t come out and say it, but his reasoning was all too clear. The game has changed. It’s not as wide open as it was when Crosby entered the league following the lockout that wiped out the 2004-05 season. Those first couple of years must have been fun for Crosby because, you know, penalties were called. The last few years have been an eye-opening experience for Crosby, and not in a positive way. But three-on-three hockey will be different. There will be all kinds of room, nothing but quality scoring opportunities and odd-man rushes. In those moments, great players can actually have fun. The NHL long ago lost that quality.

So, Crosby and the rest of the NHL’s stars will be thrilled. This means more goals and points for them. Fans will probably like it, too. Is it a gimmick? Well, of course. So is the four-on-four overtime. Most fans will like it, and there’s certainly something to be said for that.

UPDATE at 12:10 a.m.: Just communicated with Crosby a few minutes ago.

“I am happy to see that it is going to be three-on-three next year,” he said. “It will be exciting for the fans and, hopefully, we will have more games finish in regulation because of this.”

UPDATE at 6:20 p.m.: As expected, the Board of Governors agreed with the wishes of general managers to switch to three-on-three overtime. It’s here to stay. Coach challenges are now a thing in the NHL also.

47 Comments Newest to oldest

Milo Hamilton

6-23-2015, 10:32 pm

In other news, MLB will play extra innings without outfielders.

BillyBaduka

6-24-2015, 5:50 am

Nice

Nick

6-23-2015, 10:36 pm

No change to playoff overtimes?

WildcatRay

6-24-2015, 6:44 am

Nope. Regular season OT/Shootouts are a concession to the grind that the regular season is. With teams too often having to fly out immediately after the game, it just is not practical to a 3 OT marathon and then be forced to play the following night in a different city against a team that may not have played anywhere from 1 to 7 days before.

In the playoffs, teams will have at least one day off after the game before they play the same opponent, again. The worst case scenario is that they may have a day off before playing a new opponent in a different city. Eminently more practical to keep playoff OT as is.

matt.gajtka

6-23-2015, 10:38 pm

Maybe a step closer to 4 on 4 full-time? I can dream I guess.

ziggygreece

6-23-2015, 10:55 pm

never happen bud

WildcatRay

6-24-2015, 6:54 am

I doubt the league/owners could ever get the NHLPA to give up 4 to 6 jobs.

I cannot believe that a move to 4-on-4 would happen and the owners not want to cut down the size of the active rosters.

(My figuring is that you would have 4 lines and 4 defensive pairings unless the league decided to stick with just 6 d-men.)

Also, if rosters stayed at 20, coaches would likely have a bunch of players just sitting on the bench virtually the whole game because 4-on-4 won't cut time on ice for the Crosbys and Malkins of the team. Why would Johnston take ice time away from Crosby to play Adams? The answer is he wouldn't so why have Adams at all.

matt.gajtka

6-24-2015, 8:28 am

You're probably right, Ray. I've been trying to figure it out for years but I keep coming back to the thoughts you just expressed.

Although, the league was once 6 on 6 with a "rover," so it wouldn't be unprecedented. Players are such good skaters nowadays, the effective space on the ice has been decreased.

Marc

6-24-2015, 12:59 pm

The real solution would be to adopt the larger international rink size, but that would cost a lot of money in arena renovations and cause lost revenue for the seats it would eliminate. So, never gonna happen

Michael Lynch

6-23-2015, 10:39 pm

How will goaltenders react to this change?

WildcatRay

6-24-2015, 6:55 am

Continue imitating brick walls!

Scaldis Noel

6-23-2015, 10:39 pm

The tacit admission by the league, even if they don't realize it, is that opening up the ice is good for the game and makes it exciting. If only they'd come to the conclusion that cracking down hard on obstruction penalties will accomplish the same thing for the first 60 minutes without resorting to a gimmick.

TMura

6-23-2015, 10:49 pm

You couldn't be more right, but this will still be fun to watch.

WildcatRay

6-24-2015, 7:02 am

My take is that the league has few Crosbys and Malkins, thus many of the teams don't have such skill on their rosters. They intimate to the spineless one (Bettman) that if he insists on having the officials call the obstruction penalties, they won't be able to compete effectively, not be in contention for a playoff spot and thus not have good attendance and/or eyeballs on the game telecasts.

So, it comes down to money not to mention that the garage league appears intent on expanding. Prospective new owners won't like it if they have to try and sign big money superstars right off the bat just to be competitive.

nightsky73144

6-24-2015, 11:33 am

See, I have to disagree, WildcatRay.
I honestly believe that there is a greater abundance of truly skilled players (most teams have 1-2 highly skilled players, honestly - I mean, not Crosby and Malkin, but I could name an awful lot of 'pairs' on an awful lot of teams who could really benefit from a properly-called game) today than there has ever been in the NHL.
Unfortunately, probably 50% of those truly skilled players are European (for example, Tarasenko, Ovechkin, Backstrom, Voracek); and the Canadian dinosaurs are terrified that highlighting the skilled players will lessen the 'impact' and need for big, slow Canadian farm boys whose game consists of smash, clutch, and grab.

WildcatRay

6-24-2015, 7:45 pm

@nightsky73144,

Honestly, we agree more than we disagree.

By allowing the obstruction to go on unpenalized enables lesser talented teams to hang around longer with teams like Chicago, and to a bit lesser extent, the Pens.

That pleases the owners and the dinosaurs.

unipress_5533f164c643b

6-23-2015, 10:40 pm

It's very simple. Call all penalties, but the NHL wants this flamboyant concept of grit

WildcatRay

6-24-2015, 7:03 am

See my comment just above.

Bioshock

6-23-2015, 10:41 pm

Purists will say this isn't real hockey. Well, your version of "Real hockey" sucks and is boring as watching paint dry. I want to be entertained.

AJS

6-23-2015, 11:11 pm

What we witness during the season isnt real hockey either. the obstruction is back and it stinks. call the penalties and play it 5 on 5. oh and whatever a penalty is in game 1 should be a penalty in 82 and in game 7 of sc.

Chiflyfisher

6-23-2015, 10:49 pm

Horrible. Back to 5 on 5. Just call the game the way it's supposed to be call. All this other bs becomes moot.

6-23-2015, 10:52 pm

This is what we did in the Federal League, and it was awesome. 3-on-3 is such different hockey, but it's extremely exciting.

Shellwinder

6-23-2015, 10:52 pm

Now if they'd just do something about all the blocking and actually call penalties.

kellileo

6-23-2015, 11:01 pm

Who has the strongest OT team? 87/71/58 has to be up there as one of the best line ups...if one of them actually shoots the puck instead of forever setting each other up.

thebeloved

6-23-2015, 11:08 pm

This is the only way to combat the Canadian dinosaur farm boys who like them some grit. Should push for 4 on 4 60 min games too. That'll take the Craig Adams' out of the league

AJS

6-23-2015, 11:08 pm

I hate 4 on 4. Hockey is played with 5 men. Decide it with 5 men. Now we are going to 3? Cmon. Will it be entertaining? Sure. But that doesnt make it a better way to settle on a winner. at least 4 on 4 id an actual game situation. 3 on 3 is totally manufactured.

So the big question is do you load up with 3 forwards? Why not you already got a point. Do you play conservative with 2 d and try to get to a shooyout if your team is good at them? The strategy is intriguing. But I still hate the idea.

tfftroy

6-23-2015, 11:12 pm

I don't see how this really helps the overall product and play. It does nothing for the 5v5 play issues that plagued the game all year.

Will it be fun to watch for the percentage of games that actually end up going to OT? Yes. Sid, Geno, and Tanger out there would be awesome. But let's fix the problems with the first 60 minutes and maybe 3v3 OT wouldn't be all that necessary.

I find it odd that they are keeping the shootout but hey, good for skill.

eddie.melville

6-23-2015, 11:20 pm

If NHL actually called obstruction, this would not even be needed. However, the refs don't, so I will enjoy the few minutes this rule change will allow where I can actually see Sid and Geno navigate the ice with time and space to create exciting scoring chances.

October Baseball

6-24-2015, 12:04 am

Does anyone else find this paradoxical situation ironic as I do?
The Neanderthal NHL leadership looks away while officials fail to call basic types of penalties (obstruction for one) that would help to open up the 60 most important minutes of the game- yet busts open OT even wider with 3on3!

I think they play solitaire with a deck of less than 52 cards at their meetings.

NJ07035

6-24-2015, 12:15 am

I hate it. Too gimmicky for me. I have also said for years that I love the shoot-out, but hate that it decides games.

I would rather see the league make the regulation count more - 3 pts for a reg win, 2 pts for OT, and 1 pt for a shootout win. Teams that are desperate for points late in the year will be more inclined to open up the game to grab the 3.

(and get rid of the loser's point for making it that far; only the winner deserves any points)

stok13

6-24-2015, 12:17 am

Nice update with the Crosby quote, Josh. As a reader interested how that kind of stuff happens late at night, did you happen to run into him in Las Vegas at the awards or does media have a way of contacting players like that (business cell phone, etc.) during off-hours?

Adam Smith

6-24-2015, 12:49 am

Any chance that more changes will come this offseason that are geared towards opening up the game more? It seems that since the first round of the playoffs this year there has been a more collective angst among fans, pundits, and even players about the tightness of the game. People want change and I know the Penguins would love to see the games called the right way too. Can the NHL afford to ignore its fans, players, and the media?

The wolf

6-24-2015, 11:05 am

Bettmans been doing it for years. Why stop now?

waye1608

6-24-2015, 1:33 am

How about playing the 3rd period 4 on 4. That would eliminate the boring traps and defensive shells that all teams seem to do when they have a lead. Well, I know it won't happen but it would be exciting.

News/views: Crosby welcomes 3-on-3 OT

CONTACT

ESSENTIALS

ABOUT OUR SITE