The NCAA Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules Committee has been trying to alter
 their overtime rules after they noticed a crisis similar to the NHL';s
shootout crisis: too many games were ending in ties. By December of last year,
the league had seen a total of 59 ties. This offseason, the NCAA decided they
were going to work to change that, as well as change the styles in which teams
can earn back points in conference games.A Call for Uniformity

Like all other college sports, NCAA hockey has rules that vary greatly from
that of its respective professional league-for better or for worse. One of the
options, which is for the worse, is games ending in ties. Games end in ties if
the game remains tied after a five-minute 5-on-5 overtime period.

The 5-on-5 OT period is required but after that, in conference games, teams can
 use one of three different options in order to avoid and tie and earn points
 back.MANCHESTER, NH - MARCH 25: NCAA Division I Men';s Ice Hockey Northeast
Regional Championship semifinal at the SNHU Arena on March 25, 2017 in
Manchester, New Hampshire. (Photo by Richard T Gagnon / Fighting Irish Media)

Atlantic Hockey, the ECAC and Hockey East follow the simplest option that after
 the five-minute OT ends, the game ends in a tie and no extra points can be
earned. The WCHA and NCHC do five-minutes of 3-on-3 OT and follow-up with a
sudden-death shootout. Meanwhile, the Big Ten initiates a three-person shootout
 and advances to a sudden-death shootout if needed.

The varying standards for conferences can draw comparisons to the MLB with
their use of a designated hitter in the American League but not in the National
 League. While a DH doesn';t impact the outcome of a game quite like the
extra-point rules do, both have a distinct impact on the strategies of a team.

For the Big Ten, there would be more emphasis on recruiting shootout
specialists since they only experience shootouts following OT, or maybe more
drills would be centered around the goalies versus shooter situation in
practice. And if they';re accustomed to working magic in shootouts, when it
comes to non-conference games suddenly they';re got off-guard when all they
have is an overtime period. And what if that game comes against an NCHC team
that plays two periods of OT? What';s more, what if it';s against an ECAC team
that only gets one period of OT usually?

The point is there are slight advantages and disadvantages given to teams
depending on what conferences they play in.A Revision on a Universal Rule

To try and smooth over these inconsistencies, the NCAA called for an end to
these conference systems and to establish a uniform rule across the
entire NCAA. The NCAA wanted to eliminate the extra-point option and go for
one single overtime option that would decide if games ended in a tie, or a
win/loss.

However, when it came time for their first proposal, the rules had slightly
changed.

The NCAA proposed that the required first period of OT would no longer be
5-on-5, but 4-on-4. On top of this, they created an optional rule of allowing a
 three-on-three OT period and sudden death shootout to follow for an extra
point within each conference, though conferences could opt to not use the rule
at all.

"After a thorough discussion of the overtime process, and seeing the success
experienced by the National Hockey League and others using four-on-four, we
believe this change will be a positive step for NCAA hockey," said Tom
Anastos, chair of the committee and head coach of the men's hockey team at
Michigan State University.

By going 4-on-4 the NCAA would have very well seen an increase in goals and
games ending in OT rather than a tie, much like the NHL did when they saw an
issue of too many games going to shootouts. Despite going back on wanting just
one OT period, the solution still posed only one extra-point method.CHICAGO, IL
 - APRIL 6: NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Championship semifinal at the
United Center. The Univ. of Minn. - Duluth Bulldogs win the semifinal game
against the Harvard Crimson and advance to the final game on Saturday night
(Michael Bennett/University of Minnesota - Duluth Bulldogs Athletics).

However, the rule had been fatally altered after hearing from their
membership. The rule changed to a mimicking of their current systems. The
4-on-4 mandatory OT that was created to increase scoring was changed back to
5-on-5. On top of that, conferences would be able to choose to have a
five-minute 3-on-3 OT period followed by a shootout or go straight to a
shootout, bypassing the second OT.

As much as the NCAA beckoned for more regulation and uniform systems, their new
 solution does just the opposite. While the three options to gain back points
have been cut down to two options (OT then shootout or just a shootout), there
is still a lack of an overarching policy.No Problems Solved

So what does the rule solve?

Quite honestly, nothing. The rule serves more comedic value at the sheer
absurdity of the NCAA. The league called for a rule change to solve the issue
of ties and unregulated points back options. Neither of those is getting
solved.

The NCAA should take note of what the NHL is up to.

While the NHL is known for making mistakes, their rule changes to increase
scoring has been the opposite of a mistake. The combination of enforcement of
faceoff rules, the revision to the slashing penalty and 3-on-3 overtime makes
everyone laugh at the fact they considered enlarging nets or shrinking
equipment instead.

The original plan of 4-on-4 play in one OT was ideal. It would cause more goals
 to be scored and it would not be a difficult transition for teams; it would
only decrease units by one player. It';s not as if teams are playing 3-on-3
and most of them hardly ever get caught with only three men on the ice outside
of that OT period-teams get dropped to four players on a penalty kill, so it
would be an easy transition.

And as for still having extra-point options, it';s an option that doesn';t need
 to exist. While it';s nice as a fan to be able to get free hockey or to be a
coach and get your players the extra conditioning, the extra point is not
necessary. Games that go into an extra-point scenario officially count as a tie
 in the overall standings and only impact conference standings. The impact it
has is important but teams could easily function without it.

If anything, it pushes teams to reach for the extra-point instead of putting
their necks out there and pushing for a win. This is because a loss in the
extra-point system is worth one point instead of zero in regulation or a
mandatory OT period.8 Apr 17: The Denver University Pioneers play against the
University of Minnesota Duluth Bulldogs in the National Championship game of
the 2017 NCAA Men';s Division I Frozen Four at the United Center in Chicago,
IL. (Jim Rosvold / Univ. of Minn. Duluth Athletics).

The best option to solve that issue is eliminating the extra-point option
altogether, something the NCAA had originally planned to do. Now teams will be
willing to take chances and get the 'W'; instead of a participation point,
therefore cutting down on ties.

And if you can';t eliminate the extra-point, then make it so it';s hard to get
to that point. Enforce 3-on-3 in the mandatory OT. It';s like when the NHL
wanted to cut down on shootouts, how they did it was by making teams get
through a dangerous 3-on-3 OT in order to get there. The same rules apply. Make
 the mandatory OT 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 and suddenly extra-point games will become
sparse, and ties in out-of-conference games will fall too. It';s a win-win.

The NCAA knew what it was going into their proposal, which will be approved or
rejected this coming Wednesday, July 25 in a rules conference, but have gone
down a road in which their issues really won';t be solved at this rate, but
maybe it';s a step in the right direction.

The post NCAA';s New Overtime Proposal Not What League Needs appeared first on
The Hockey Writers.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheHockeyWrite...
--- SBBSecho 3.05-Win32
 * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)