why hockey is dumb

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
I just remembered the real reason that hockey is dumb. The home team gets to match up before every faceoff, and the visiting team has to set their stick first. Over the course of a game, I would think that this would be quite an advantage to the home team. (People who know more about hockey might want to weigh in on this.)

I think the should decide those things by which end of the ice the faceoff is on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I read somewhere that hockey teams win 54% of their home games? Being able to set matchups is not that big a deal - teams who consistently match lines are able to change their players very quickly to get the matchups they want.

[ArcticKnight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: Also, no matter how retarded the NHL OT system is... it's FAR superior compared to the NFL's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the NFL's overtime is much better. The only sport with a worse overtime than NHL is college football.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? An overtime that doesn't guarantee an equal chance for offensive possession is better than one that does? Yeah, college football is dumb because it's a shootout style that barely resembles football and yes, the NHL shootout part of overtime is sorta dumb, but it beats hours of OT's or ties. The 5 minute 4-on-4 part of the NHL OT is actually pretty nice and not a huge departure from how the game is played in regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there were no shootout, then I would think the NHL had a better overtime. I agree that football overtime could be better, but the way that the NFL does it now is at least football. I don't feel bad for teams that never get the ball because defence is a part of football.

BTW, what's wrong with ties?

[/ QUOTE ]

College FB overtime rocks. It's a helluva lot more exciting than NFL overtime(which is a big fat yawn). I just wish they'd start about 10-15 yards farther back.

NFL is about the only overtime I can think of where both teams don't have an equal opportunity after the coin flip.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree Bernie. I can't believe someone is saying NFL OT is better than College OT. I guess NFL is better if you like watching a cointoss..

[/ QUOTE ]

First, defence is a part of football, so if you let the other team score on the first possesion, I have no sympathy for you.

Second, college overtime is not football. Football is largely about field position, and this is not a part of the college overtime (And wouldn't be no matter how far back they start).

I think that there are several options which are better than the NFL overtime, but the college system is not one of them.

(And the NFL overtime is usually more exciting than the regulation game IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right defence is part of football, but let me throw a wrench in your argument: When was the last time a NFL team won the OT toss and decided to "defend" first?

The current NFL system would be as silly as having a shootout in hockey where if the team that goes first scores, the other team loses - they don't get a chance to shoot. game over. Or in baseball, if the visitor scores in the top of 12th inning, it's game over....

OT has to be about equal opportunity to score, not just defend against a score.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, there are better ways to do overtime, I just don't think that the college system is one of them. I guess I would rather have the teams play a somewhat unfair version of football than a totally different game (no matter how fair).

BTW, I know of at least two instances in which the team that won the toss in overtime chose sides (but that doesn't make your point invalid).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points. I should have just focussed on the fact that NFL OT sucks, and not offered CFB OT as the best alternative.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]


Good points. I should have just focussed on the fact that NFL OT sucks, and not offered CFB OT as the best alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate OT. Leave it the way it was. During keep the ties as ties.
All the OTs are bad. If there must be an OT, the team should be required to win by a touchdown. If you score a FG, the other team gets one possession to score a TD to steal the win.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
First, defence is a part of football, so if you let the other team score on the first possesion, I have no sympathy for you.


[/ QUOTE ]

Defense is also part of baseball, hockey and basketball. Except you're gauranteed a shot at both offense and Defense in those overtimes. Imagine Basketball OT being the first to score or even baseball. It's dumb.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, college overtime is not football. Football is largely about field position, and this is not a part of the college overtime (And wouldn't be no matter how far back they start).


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it'd be about field position. Especially depending on how the 1st team did on their first posession.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that there are several options which are better than the NFL overtime, but the college system is not one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

[ QUOTE ]
(And the NFL overtime is usually more exciting than the regulation game IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it kind of a yawn.

College OT is still a helluva lot more exciting than NFL OT.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I know of at least two instances in which the team that won the toss in overtime chose sides (but that doesn't make your point invalid).

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they win?

[ QUOTE ]
I would rather have the teams play a somewhat unfair version of football than a totally different game

[/ QUOTE ]

They play lacrosse? Looks like football to me.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
When was the last time a college team won the toss and decided to go on offense first? The college team that wins the coin toss and goes on defense first has won ~55% of the time, compared to ~60% in the NFL since the advent of the 30 yard line kickoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key part is in college you're gauranteed to get a shot on offense. Not so in NFL. Which sucks.

b

[bluef0x]

Why hockey is great

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I would rather have the teams play a somewhat unfair version of football than a totally different game

[/ QUOTE ]

They play lacrosse? Looks like football to me.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. It's a red zone offence vs. redzone defence drill. Calling this foorball would be like calling a penalty shootout soccer, or a home run derby baseball.

[bluef0x]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I would rather have the teams play a somewhat unfair version of football than a totally different game

[/ QUOTE ]

They play lacrosse? Looks like football to me.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. It's a red zone offence vs. redzone defence drill. Calling this foorball would be like calling a penalty shootout soccer, or a home run derby baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horrible analogy. It's football and it's "more football" than the current NFL system.

As I said earlier, not a single team would kick a field goal on 1st and 10... yet you see this happen in the NFL OT system.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I would rather have the teams play a somewhat unfair version of football than a totally different game

[/ QUOTE ]

They play lacrosse? Looks like football to me.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not. It's a red zone offence vs. redzone defence drill. Calling this foorball would be like calling a penalty shootout soccer, or a home run derby baseball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horrible analogy. It's football and it's "more football" than the current NFL system.

As I said earlier, not a single team would kick a field goal on 1st and 10... yet you see this happen in the NFL OT system.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way that a system that eliminates special teams is "more football" than the NFL system. The college system may be closer to football than shootouts are from their sports, but it is still very different from football.