A new standardized rules proposal for every regular season game to end in a tie if tied after five minutes of five-on-five OT was not long for this world. It didn't take Nostradamus to see this simplifying decision meeting the same fate as four-on-four OT proposed two years ago.
From the moment the NCAA rules committee last month unveiled it last month, it was only a matter of time before backlash ended with a return to status quo.
Just as it was the time before. And the time before that too.
That moment came late last week when the rules committee released a modified proposal, which still needs to be passed this week, that does anything but definitively define a decisive end to the extra period.
Conferences once again can choose how to end games rather than the NCAA, creating an American League/National League situation where entertainment (West) clashes with tradition (East). There's no simple explanation. All games unsettled after five minutes of five-on-five OT technically end in ties for Pairwise purposes.
Anything else contested determines a winner solely for conference points. It's a lesson in compromise confusing new fans, announcers or TV graphics people who are used to seeing NHL teams win or lose off three-on-three OT and shootouts. It's a game within a game. It ends up being an aside, a parenthetical taking up valuable real estate in a newspaper recap. (i.e. Both teams officially tied 1-1. The Gophers lost a shootout 2-1 in 12 rounds for the extra conference point.) It can be confusing. Players and coaches often end up distraught with a three-on-three OT loss despite, in theory, coming back to tie a game.
There's no one way, either. Different conferences implement different overtime formats after 65 minutes. The WCHA uses different formats among its men's (three-on-three OT and a shootout) and women's (solely a three-skater shootout) leagues. The NCHC champions the three-on-three OT used by most pro and junior leagues and a sudden death shootout format. The Big Ten, meanwhile, used a three-skater shootout during its first five seasons although is looking at its options moving forward, sources say.
While there is plenty of disagreement among the western schools big and small, credit to the NCAA rules committee for accomplishing the difficult task of uniting them all. The same can be said for most eastern conference schools being vehemently anti-shootout and three-on-three OT.
On many issues - including proposed four-on-four OT during the last rules modification (at the time used by the NHL and most leagues) - schools were at odds by size. Five minutes of four-on-four OT, with then-Michigan State head coach Tom Anastos as the rules committee head, was seen by smaller schools as another attempt by the Big Ten and larger schools to get an advantage with more space and more talent. Instead, that's changed somewhat over two years. NCHC and WCHA schools in 2018 unanimously want to keep three-on-three OT.
Out East? There's agreement too. Five-on-five is fine. So is ending in a tie. Many East fans find added overtime periods/shootouts boring or an experiment whose time has come to an end. Entertainment for entertainment's sake can be a waste if it doesn't count for anything. Plus five-on-five college hockey OT already contains entertainment and excitement regardless of the finish.
Taking away ties and having three-on-three OT (something the NCHC would be happy) count for anything leads to a situation similar to the 2016 four-on-four OT proposal. Risk-adverse coaches and teams would be in a tough spot with the Pairwise. College hockey is unique in that no other league decides its playoffs with a computer formula.
Given the extremely close margins in the Pairwise deciding who gets in and who gets out - a single win, loss, and tie over 30+ games can make a world's difference - major change can be close to impossible in a sport where 20 teams enter conference tournament weekend believing they are capable of winning a national championship.
Any change seems to be at an impasse. Both sides predictably over the summer dug into their viewpoints. Somewhere in the disconnect sees Eastern and Western schools once again tabling the discussion for another two years.
Sadly, at the heart of this exercise ends up being a giant power play between two regions. This wasn't really about overtime, but about everyone else trying to get a win. Just as when a West-led overtime proposal two years ago was shot down, an East-led proposal (as there were no representatives from the three western D1 conferences) to simplify OT was 86ed by the West.
It sets up for another showdown in two years when the NCAA rules committee once again will try to define overtime throughout college hockey. Or not.
Tasked to do so this summer, the telling comment walking back the original proposal was Hockey East commissioner and rules committee chair Joe Bertagna saying "the process has always allowed for reconsideration. ... In short, the system worked."
Did it? The system once again ended up taking an idea and walking it back. Other than getting rid of non-conference shootouts, little changed. Overtime remains in limbo between counting for computer rankings and sending fans home happy (but only for Western schools). Going back to the current format again sends a message that fighting any major change works (as it continues to do).
Deciding a winner should not be confusing nor take four steps to explain. The idea of overtime should be simple. Two deadlocked sides use the extra time to give it their all and find an undisputed winner.
In regards to any rules proposal, rather than try to have one winner, the current system is set up to play for the tie.
--------
If you enjoyed this blog, you can follow Nate on Twitter and like/subscribe to my Facebook page. Thanks!
--------
If you enjoyed this blog, you can follow Nate on Twitter and like/subscribe to my Facebook page. Thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment