- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
3 on 3 Hockey is ridiculously fun to watch
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:01 am
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:01 am
Not a hockey fan in the slightest, but 3v3 hockey is ridiculously fun to watch. I know traditionalist will probably hate it but, F that format is exhilarating. I would watch way more NHL if they incorporated 3v3 into games.
This post was edited on 2/23/26 at 4:24 pm
12
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:02 am to Revan11
Hockey fans hate it and describe it as gimmicky. Just a step above the shootout.
It is fun though. But anyone who really follows hockey knows playoff overtime 5v5 is god tier.
It is fun though. But anyone who really follows hockey knows playoff overtime 5v5 is god tier.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:04 am to Revan11
Almost made hockey watchable.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:05 am to jlovel7
Would love to see 3v3 OT without it being sudden death, just a 5 min IT woukd be insane to watch.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:07 am to jlovel7
I agree, maybe it would be good for regular season games. Keep 5v5 for the Playoffs.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:16 am to Revan11
It’s a lot of fun in short doses as a golden goal situation, but it would not be as enjoyable to watch for 60 minutes for multiple reasons (would both be too many total goals and the players would become exhausted).
I do think that, in hindsight, 4-on-4 would be a bit more entertaining than 5-on-5, but I wouldn’t want them to change it now due to the tradition/history of the sport (more like, when they were inventing hockey from scratch 100+ years ago, I’d prefer if they had picked 4-on-4 instead of 5-on-5 haha).
I do think that, in hindsight, 4-on-4 would be a bit more entertaining than 5-on-5, but I wouldn’t want them to change it now due to the tradition/history of the sport (more like, when they were inventing hockey from scratch 100+ years ago, I’d prefer if they had picked 4-on-4 instead of 5-on-5 haha).
This post was edited on 2/22/26 at 11:17 am
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:34 am to Buckeye Fan 19
quote:
It’s a lot of fun in short doses as a golden goal situation, but it would not be as enjoyable to watch for 60 minutes
Yeah....
Couldn't imagine 3 periods of this, kinda exhausting to watch, let alone the players as you mentioned... And goals would become cheap and sloppy...but the frantic pace and open ice works well enough for an exciting fast way to finally end long games.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:35 am to Revan11
While fun, I think settling a gold medal game that way is kind of messed up. It would make sense in NHL regular season, for example since there's 82 games.
With that said frick Canada.
With that said frick Canada.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 11:40 am to Revan11
3v3 hockey is about possession. You don’t just fire every average chance you get and risk sudden change for a low probability chance.
Canada played 3v3 shockingly dumb. I think they all wanted their Crosby moment and felt it was coming and the US just wanted their win.
Canada played 3v3 shockingly dumb. I think they all wanted their Crosby moment and felt it was coming and the US just wanted their win.
Posted on 2/22/26 at 9:43 pm to Revan11
I thought it was exciting to watch too, but I don't follow hockey. It was fun seeing just how wide open the game suddenly became for a few minutes, but I could see why hockey fans would hate it. According to the hockey fans it ends up becoming pretty arbitrary as to who scores first. I guess as a football fan it would be like if teams played 11 on 11 all game, but then in overtime they made it dueling 7 on 7 drills. Non-fans would probably love all the passing, fans who actually watch games would hate it (and rightfully so).
Posted on 2/23/26 at 12:16 am to Revan11
3X3 hockey is like 7-on-7 drills in football. Fun to watch but not something you want to settle a big game with. They should have gone to 4X4 for the medal round.
Posted on 2/23/26 at 7:53 am to bstaceyau19
quote:
3X3 hockey is like 7-on-7 drills in football. Fun to watch but not something you want to settle a big game with. They should have gone to 4X4 for the medal round.
I have a feeling the NHL wanted 3v3 so games didn't last significantly extended minutes.
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:18 am to Revan11
I used to play 3v3 on NHL 95.
It was awesome.
It was awesome.
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:38 am to Revan11
It's a terrible way to decide a championship or any elimination game, but I understand why they do it. It also definitely benefitted the US.
Posted on 2/23/26 at 10:57 am to NaturalBeam
How so? Canada had McDavid, MacKinnon, Celebrini. The Canadians had a clear advantage in personnel in the 3v3 format. They complain now, but didn't complain when they won in the same format in the semis. I have a feeling if they won yesterday they wouldn't be complaining either.
It's sour grapes from Canada. They knew the format going into the Games .
It's sour grapes from Canada. They knew the format going into the Games .
Posted on 2/23/26 at 11:23 am to SoDakHawk
Not really. It's a crap shoot at that point. McDavid tried to have his Crosby moment, played selfishly and paid the price.
I'm not a fan of 3on3.
I'm not a fan of 3on3.
Posted on 2/23/26 at 11:53 am to SoDakHawk
quote:I only saw a clip from their coach afterward and he didn't complain about it and said they same thing - they knew of it going into the tournament.
It's sour grapes from Canada. They knew the format going into the Games .
Yes, Canada has McJesus and MacKinnon, but 3v3 is still more of a crapshoot which is what the US needed at that point in the game. I don't know if you saw the 3rd period, but it did not look like we were going to win the longer that game went 5v5.
Posted on 2/23/26 at 12:32 pm to NaturalBeam
quote:
I only saw a clip from their coach afterward
Canadas HC and the rest of Canada have done nothing but bitch about it after winning their last two games by 3 X 3.
Can't make it up they're not too bright
Posted on 2/23/26 at 12:39 pm to Revan11
quote:
Not a hockey fan in the slightest, but 3v3 hockey is ridiculously fun to watch. I know traditionalist will probably hate it but, F that format is exhilarating. I would watch way more NHL if they incorporated 3v3 into games.
They already do this. OT in the regular reason goes straight to 3 on 3 for 5 minutes. If nobody scores, then it goes to a shootout.
Posted on 2/23/26 at 1:21 pm to Revan11
Its the equivalent of MLB starting extra innings with a runner on 2nd, or NCAA football starting with the ball on the 25 yard line. It's meant for quick offense to end a tied game quickly. For regular season, I have zero problems with it. Nobody wants their star player hurt because a hockey game is in the 108th minute of game 58 on the season. But for playoffs, or big tournament championships, I'd rather see 5 on 5 "real hockey." 3 on 3 is fun as hell to watch, but it's not the same game.
I will say, maybe for the Olympics with NHL players, 3 on 3 is what the NHL wants. Again, nobody wants their best player getting hurt and then can't come back to their pro team. You, me, and the players all see the Olympics as a legitimate championship, but I'm sure the NHL sees it as an exhibition where their assets are at risk.
I will say, maybe for the Olympics with NHL players, 3 on 3 is what the NHL wants. Again, nobody wants their best player getting hurt and then can't come back to their pro team. You, me, and the players all see the Olympics as a legitimate championship, but I'm sure the NHL sees it as an exhibition where their assets are at risk.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News