NCAA Ice Hockey Moving to Two-Ref System … and Removing Ties?
USCHO reports that NCAA Ice Hockey will move to a two-ref system in 2008-09, which is something that I actually support. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen no-calls that an assistant ref saw but wasn’t empowered to call by the rulebook. Having two sets of eyes really helps cut down on the no-calls, so I’m all for this. [Besides, it's two refs I can ride like broken down mules during the game.] To contain costs, the NCAA decided to simply swap a ref for an AR, and … that’s fine. NCAA ice hockey isn’t a big money-maker, so keeping the number of on-ice officials at three is fine. We’ll get a second AR in another decade or so, I figure.
In a bad case of burying the lead, though, USCHO glossed over what I thought was the bigger part of the new story: the desire to eliminate ties! Call me old-fashioned, but I think that ties are one of the things that makes hockey, well, hockey. I hate what the NHL has done with ties—both the overtime loss and shootouts suck!—and I hate to see college hockey go the same direction. Since USCHO buried the lead, I’ll quote the full section:
The issue of tie games was discussed at length at the meeting. The committee considered numerous ideas, including efforts to reduce ties and ways to completely eliminate ties from the game. After these discussions, it is the committee’s current intent to eliminate ties starting with the 2008-09 season.
The group developed the three most feasible options to eliminate ties:
1) Five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime, then decide the game by using a shootout. This option had the most support among committee members.
2) Five minutes of 4-on-4 overtime, then 3-on-3 for five minutes of overtime, then a shootout.
3) Each team would receive a 5-on-4 power play opportunity for two minutes. If Team A scores and then holds Team B from scoring, Team A wins. If Team B scores a shorthanded goal during Team A’s opportunity, the game is over and Team B wins. If a penalty is called on the shorthanded team during the overtime opportunity, the power play opportunity is extended for the additional time. The procedure is used until one team scores. This model is more in line philosophically with the tiebreaking procedures used successfully in NCAA football.The group also developed the three most feasible options to reduce ties:
1) Five minute overtimes playing 4-on-4.
2) 10 minute overtimes playing 4-on-4.
3) Five minute overtimes playing 4-on-4 and then 3-on-3.The committee discussed the effect on the Ratings Percentage Index in Division I and the selection criteria for Division III institutions, and will continue discussions with the appropriate championship committees throughout this process. These selection criteria are the purview of the selection committees, not the rules committees.
“At this point, the committee did not take any formal action on tie games, but is presenting several options for consideration throughout the year,” said [Col. Jim] Knowlton, [chair of the committee and an administrator at the United States Military Academy]. “We plan to have some resolution on this issue at our meeting next summer.”
It makes zero sense to me that you want to change the rules of the game when it’s tied after 60 minutes. I don’t get the antipathy towards ties. You get a point. If you tie both games of a weekend, you split … you get two points. No problem there.
i think people show up to sporting events knowing they will either be elated or deflated when they leave. it’s part of the thrill of going, knowing that the outcome will make you or break you emotionally for the night. with a tie, most people just don’t know how to process it. it’s the middle ground between a loss and a win, does that mean emotionally it is the middle ground as well…which would be indifference, i guess?
ties are great when your team scores the equalizer with 30 seconds left and equally terrible when your team gives it up late. in those cases your expectations were adjusted to the outcome you expected and a last-second tie changes that. but in most cases, at least for me, a tie just doesnt provide the closure that i like to have. but then again, i’m neither a hockey nor soccer fan, so that’s not surprising.
July 4th, 2007 at 06:48There are a few problems with forcing victories. One, some people see the shootout as a spectacle unworthy of professional sports, which I feel is a rather ironic statement. Two, some people see the shootout as a one-on-one competition instead of a team-on-team competition. This, I think, is the strongest argument against having a shootout in team sports.
Then there’s the statistics issue that showed up in this most recent NHL season — you can’t compare goaltender or team victories with past seasons.
I wasn’t in favour of the shootout before it came along, but it’s growing on me. I’m really glad that they don’t use it in the playoffs — regular season games don’t really mean as much as playoff games and a bit of a show is kind of nice.
July 4th, 2007 at 16:07Bryan: I think that’s true for most sporting environments, but college hockey fans are a bit weird.
Brad: You hit on the argument I make most strongly: don’t reduce a team game to an individual competition. I don’t terribly mind the shootout on the NHL level—it is growing on me, and its use is limited—but I hate it for the college game.
You can actually have a shootout in the NCAA, but only during regular season tournaments where having a team go multiple overtimes is not desirable because the outcome just isn’t that important. I’ve only come close to seeing that once, and then our boys scored to beat Ferris State with under a minute left in OT.
The day Bettman so much as floats the idea of shootouts in playoff games is the day I begin agitating for a violent overthrow of his regime.
July 4th, 2007 at 16:21You mean you haven’t begun advocating the violent overthrow of Bettman’s regime yet? I started when Minnesota moved to Dallas.
July 4th, 2007 at 16:54Ehhhh, I don’t know what any owners-hired commissioner can do to stop team movement. It’s far more the overexpansion of the league that has me upset with Bettman. To say nothing of the gross mismanagement of the Bruins.
Which reminds me: if I sound the least bit excited about the B’s next year, brain me. Just go ahead and put me out of my misery.
July 4th, 2007 at 18:49Coming from a soccer rather than hockey background, I am a fan of the shootout concept… and I see it being the most practical for playoffs/tournaments where you MUST have a winner of each game. I can live with a tie during a regular season game as there are other measures to serve as tie breakers.
Once a game goes into overtime, you’re looking at one of two things:
1) Does the team have enough players in-shape enough to keep going indefinitely? Can your players go all-out? If they do, they’re gonna burn out and get sloppy. There is no definite end-point to the activity of the game.
2) Does the team have consistent offensive talent to score regularly in shootout? If you make it past the first round of shooters (5) in a soccer match, you’re moving into your defensive players. Are they just goons, or can they also place a shot?
I like option 2 because it focuses on a well-rounded team (or possibly a spectacular goalie which I don’t like so much). I don’t know if hockey requires a full round of shooters in shoot-out before calling it, but I think that would go a long way to keeping it as a team-focused event.
And the spectacle of a shootout is just too awesome to pass up!
July 5th, 2007 at 13:03