I was under the impression the shoot-out was incorporated specifically to bring in non-hockey fans. Apparently it makes things more exciting. I hate it. Like any of us as little kids on the pond or rink won the Cup in a shoot-out. We always win in triple overtime, Game 7, and the winning pass came from Yzerman (or whoever was your hero).

i agree make the shootout much less common and no points awarded for ot losses.

Rules are as follows:
• If a game is tied after three periods, each team will have a 5-on-3 power play.
* The home team will elect whether to go on the PP first or last.
• Maximum length of the power play is 3:00
* If team 1 scores on their power play, team 2 will have that much time to score on their 5-on-3.
* If they score before time is up, team 2 wins. If not, team 1 wins.
 Example: Home team elects to go on PK first. Visitor scores after 53.4 seconds have elapsed. Home team goes on PP with clock counting down from 0:53.4 seconds. If they score before the clock reaches zero, they win
• If the shorthanded team scores while playing 3-on-5, they win the game immediately upon scoring.
• If the shorthanded team commits a penalty, the PP team gets a penalty shot.
• If neither team scores after a cumulative 6 minutes of 5-on-3 PP time (very rare), go to a shootout.

Advantages:
• Far fewer shootouts – maybe one per month on average
• Maximum 6:00 of additional playing time instead of current 5:00 – maximum of one additional minute, so no need to resurface ice / no delay after regulation
* Dry scrape can still be done if shootout is needed
• Marketing opportunity for league (“Bud Light Overtime”) not sure this is an advantage, but whatever
• Real excitement for fans
* ‘Every second counts’ for both teams – Team 1 is under pressure to score as quickly as possible. Team 2 must score before the clock runs out.
• Full utilization of both rosters
* Coaches will need to use PP and PK specialists, faceoff specialists, and determine whether /how much to use stars on PK.
• Most importantly, this will forestall shootouts from creeping into the Stanley Cup playoffs. NBC, etc. will eventually press to end unlimited OT. If the choice was between 20 minutes of 5-on-5 OT followed by Super Overtime instead of 20 minutes of 5-on-5 followed by a shootout, who would choose the shootout?
* In playoffs, if neither team scores after 6:00, have another Super Overtime.
* I would hope that the Cup would never be determined by a shootout.

Win = 2 points
Loss = 0 points
Tie = 0 points

All those defense first teams, content to make their living off having 4 guys line up on their blue line 90% of the game would change their colors real quick.

It might also limit fighting as teams might have to keep offensively gifted guys on that 4th line (as opposed to goons) playing those guys 6 minutes a nights but wanting to have them around just in case they need offense to win a game.

Anyway.

2 points for a regulation win
2 points for an OT win
1 point for a shootout win
0 points for a loss.

Lou’s suggestion of switching ends? Sure, let’s try that, too.

The easiest way to increase scoring in the overtime would be a five minute 3v3 instead of 4v4. That would open up a ton of ice, and you would see a lot more run and gun.

or, if shoot out is a must…

3 pts reg or OT win, 0 pts reg or OT loss. If it goes to SO, split the points kind of like a tie but the winner of the SO gets 2 pts and the loser 1 pt.

Pretty simple, if you want the most points possible, finish it in Reg or OT. If you lose playing hockey you get nothing. If its a tie or ends in a gimmick split up the points.

Done.

Get rid of the shootout. It’s so silly to have 4 columns in the standings. It’s as if a bunch of nine year olds got together and made up some “sweet” new ways to make hockey “cool.”

W-L-T. Go ahead and make OT 10 minutes if you want. But games should only be worth two points, and there oughta be no shootout BS.

5 on 5 20:00 period

Winner get 2 points, loser 0 points

Game ends in a tie each get 1