Thursday, March 26, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
The NHL Goes Back To The Pond: How Do We Feel About 3-On-3?
The NHL Goes Back To The Pond: How Do We Feel About 3-On-3?
In case you hadn’t heard, the NHL is toying with the idea of moving toward a 3-on-3 format for its regular-season overtime in order to reduce the number of games decided by shootout. This is stupid idea, just as it was, is and always will be a stupid idea to have shootouts decide the outcome of games.
I understand that no one likes ties. We want to see a winner declared in our sporting events, not a stalemate after 60-65 minutes of play. But there’s a difference between suffering through a tie and fundamentally changing the way a game is played.
The NHL has already tinkered with removing players from the ice. Partly due to a desire to open up the game, in regular-season overtimes teams play with just four skaters as opposed to the normal five. Now the league wants to move to 3-on-3. And if that doesn’t work, why not move down to 2-on-2? Or what about a shootout!?! Oh wait…
There is a vast difference between playing 5-on-5 and 3-on-3 to the point in which the game simply is not same, just as a 3-on-3 game of basketball, while fun, isn’t used in the NBA to decide games because it becomes a different contest then. In fact, none of the other major sports decides to change the number of players on the field just to liven up overtime. The NFL doesn’t play 7-on-7 in overtime. Baseball doesn’t take away a couple fielders in extra innings. And even soccer doesn’t go to 8-on-8 in extra time. Players are only sent off with red cards or two yellows.
Hockey is meant to be played 5-on-5 (skaters, that is). It’s the very basis of the sport. Tinkering with rules to improve the game will always happen, but reducing the numbers of players alters the foundation of the game. Removing one skater from each side was bad enough, but taking away two players aside turns NHL hockey into something completely different.
I understand that players like it. I understand that fans may get excited over this. But I just can’t get on board. Is it better than the shootout deciding games? Sure. But that doesn’t mean it’s best. Two wrongs don’t make a right — they make for a different game entirely.
My solution? Bring back ties. Yes, I hate them, just like I hate neckties, but I’m a traditionalist at heart. Go back to ties, remove the automatic one point for reaching overtime (no team that loses should be rewarded with a point) and bring back hockey that actually resulted in full games of real hockey. -The Rev
In case you hadn’t heard, the NHL is toying with the idea of moving toward a 3-on-3 format for its regular-season overtime in order to reduce the number of games decided by shootout. This is stupid idea, just as it was, is and always will be a stupid idea to have shootouts decide the outcome of games.
I understand that no one likes ties. We want to see a winner declared in our sporting events, not a stalemate after 60-65 minutes of play. But there’s a difference between suffering through a tie and fundamentally changing the way a game is played.
The NHL has already tinkered with removing players from the ice. Partly due to a desire to open up the game, in regular-season overtimes teams play with just four skaters as opposed to the normal five. Now the league wants to move to 3-on-3. And if that doesn’t work, why not move down to 2-on-2? Or what about a shootout!?! Oh wait…
There is a vast difference between playing 5-on-5 and 3-on-3 to the point in which the game simply is not same, just as a 3-on-3 game of basketball, while fun, isn’t used in the NBA to decide games because it becomes a different contest then. In fact, none of the other major sports decides to change the number of players on the field just to liven up overtime. The NFL doesn’t play 7-on-7 in overtime. Baseball doesn’t take away a couple fielders in extra innings. And even soccer doesn’t go to 8-on-8 in extra time. Players are only sent off with red cards or two yellows.
Hockey is meant to be played 5-on-5 (skaters, that is). It’s the very basis of the sport. Tinkering with rules to improve the game will always happen, but reducing the numbers of players alters the foundation of the game. Removing one skater from each side was bad enough, but taking away two players aside turns NHL hockey into something completely different.
I understand that players like it. I understand that fans may get excited over this. But I just can’t get on board. Is it better than the shootout deciding games? Sure. But that doesn’t mean it’s best. Two wrongs don’t make a right — they make for a different game entirely.
My solution? Bring back ties. Yes, I hate them, just like I hate neckties, but I’m a traditionalist at heart. Go back to ties, remove the automatic one point for reaching overtime (no team that loses should be rewarded with a point) and bring back hockey that actually resulted in full games of real hockey. -The Rev
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
4 Thoughts Explain How We Got To The End Of The ‘Shady’ Era
4 Thoughts Explain How We Got To The End Of The ‘Shady’ Era
In return for McCoy, the Eagles get a very talented, very young linebacker in Kiko Alonso, an area they were desperately in need of. In addition, it frees up even more cap space for Philadelphia, giving the Eagles perhaps the most flexibility of any team in the NFL.
On the surface, the deal seems crazy. Throw in Chip’s propensity to bring in former Oregon Ducks, like Alonso, and the move isn’t exactly the most popular in Philadelphia. It’s doubly painful when losing a player everyone seemed to like and everybody definitely enjoyed watching play.
But running backs are a dime a dozen in the NFL, and the Eagles needed help at the linebacker position. If Alonso is healthy, he’s one of the best the league, and at just 24, he could be an anchor for a long time. On top of that, the Eagles are in the best position of any would-be contender to make waves in free agency — and the draft. I’m not sure if I’m 100 percent sold on trading away so much talent every offseason, but if there was a team in the NFL who could afford to make such a bold move, it’s the Philadelphia Eagles. – The Rev
Another Risk with No Reward?
Two offseasons in a row, Chip Kelly cut ties with one of his most explosive offensive players. After year one at the helm, he flat-out cut DeSean Jackson after the brash wideout had his best professional season ever. And yesterday, he traded Pro Bowl running back LeSean McCoy, just one season removed from being the NFL’s leading rusher. For a guy who has not won a single playoff game — though has won 20 games in his first two seasons — it’s asking an awful lot.In return for McCoy, the Eagles get a very talented, very young linebacker in Kiko Alonso, an area they were desperately in need of. In addition, it frees up even more cap space for Philadelphia, giving the Eagles perhaps the most flexibility of any team in the NFL.
On the surface, the deal seems crazy. Throw in Chip’s propensity to bring in former Oregon Ducks, like Alonso, and the move isn’t exactly the most popular in Philadelphia. It’s doubly painful when losing a player everyone seemed to like and everybody definitely enjoyed watching play.
But running backs are a dime a dozen in the NFL, and the Eagles needed help at the linebacker position. If Alonso is healthy, he’s one of the best the league, and at just 24, he could be an anchor for a long time. On top of that, the Eagles are in the best position of any would-be contender to make waves in free agency — and the draft. I’m not sure if I’m 100 percent sold on trading away so much talent every offseason, but if there was a team in the NFL who could afford to make such a bold move, it’s the Philadelphia Eagles. – The Rev
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
