Monday (8 OTs) edition: Wha’ Happened?
Posted on March 10th, 2008 – 8:16 AMBy Michael Rand
That was a long, exhausting and ultimately fun week. We knew it would be going in, with the boys’ state hockey tournament taking over our life. We wrote several things from the tourney, including this rather sappy piece about how it never lets you down and never becomes predictable, even if it’s essentially the same thing every year. And, from an editor’s standpoint, we cursed when Edina and Benilde-St. Margaret’s went into overtime in Friday’s Class 2A semifinal (because it threatened the paper’s ability to publish the next semi for a certain edition; as it turned out, we made it by the skin of our teeth). That game was, of course, the best of the tournament; but it must have paled in comparison to what happened in Michigan on Saturday. Many thanks to Don S. for e-mailing this story about the Division I championship game in Michigan’s state hockey tournament, which was declared a 1-1 tie after 8 overtimes. The teams, after playing 109 minutes of hockey (more than twice a regulation game in Minnesota) were awarded co-championships. Minnesota has had its share of epic games (Duluth East v. Apple Valley, of course, springs to mind), but we can’t imagine 8OT. The players seemed fine with the co-championship; predictably, some of the commenters to the article (likely the adults) dismissed it as political correctness run amok. We disagree completely. We like winners and losers as much as the next person — you learn something both ways — but this was a special circumstance. That’s your question of the day: How would you have decided this game. 1) Just as it was decided. 2) Keep playing all night until there’s a winner. 3) Suspend the game and resume it the next day. 4) Decide it with a shootout. Perhaps Mr. Marthaler has a particular point of view.
Fasola-link! Rap map. And: Hand map.
60 Responses to "Monday (8 OTs) edition: Wha’ Happened?"
Re: Multi-overtime games
Eden Prairie and Edina went to 6 OTs and 5 OTs respectively in consecutive years in the section finals. EP lost both games, and the players couldn’t even get themselves up off the ice after it was over.
#2 or #3 are the only options. Or skip the entire season and declare everyone “Co-champions”.
Dave: I didn’t cover either of those games, but I’ve heard plenty about them.
Being a “casual” hockey fan that has never even worn a pair of skates, what is wrong with a shoot-out? I mean after 5 OT’s couldn’t you have a SO? I’m sure by the end it was probably all Defense with teams just clearing the zone and switching lines. Like I said I know very little about hockey but is a Shoot-Out that bad?
Yeah, the length of one of those games led to the start of a relationship my senior year in H.S. You know a game is wearing on someone mentally, when I have enough time to make them interested…
jama, the multi-overtime games I saw were actually pretty exciting throughout. With every passing overtime each shot just makes the crowd go crazy. By the end, neither team’s fans really care what happens as long as there is a conclusion.
It reminds me of the Gopher/St. Cloud overtime game in the Final Five a couple years ago where it was high scoring, exciting (Ryan Potulny had 4 goals with a good chance at 5 or 6), and, even though the Gophers lost, my brother and I agreed that it was one of the most fun hockey games we’d ever seen.
Dave
So Hockey is the reason for your drinking? I’m sure the game was long but that is no reason to give in to drinking a Bartell’s and James.
My relationship with Bartell’s and James was short and unpleasant…
Yes, shootouts suck.
Here’s an idea…for all levels of hockey (HS, College, NHL):
First OT: 4 on 4 for five minutes.
Second OT: 3 on 3 for five minutes.
Third OT: 2 on 2 for five minutes.
Fourth OT: 1 on 1 for five minutes (now that’d be fun to watch!).
…then a shootout. Of course, if nobody has scored by now, especially during the 1 on 1 session, then neither team really deserves to win.
RE: Ludacris map.
Eastern Nebraska has the hippity-hop? Huh.
RE: 8 overtimes. I’m fine with what they did. They’re kids, for pity’s sake. If they were getting paid to be there, it’d be a different breed of cat.
General rule of thumb: in 99 out of 100 cases, it’s not “political correctness,” you’re just “a jackass.”
Stu’s on 100 for syntax.
Back in 77 or 78 - when Rand and I were just wee lads, our alma mater Grand Forks Central played archrival Red River to a classic 8 OT 1-1 tie and were named Co Champs of the North Dakota State Championship - I know its not as prestigious as the MN tourney but a classic none the less
Play as long as it takes. Otherwise, it’s like deciding to have 2 wives (not bad) or two husbands (not good) if the dating game is going on too long. Or having two talking head Presidents (but we might get that anyway)..but Hell, these kids want to play it through no matter what, since, for most of them, this will be the most important hockey game they will ever remember playing. But, stopping because “x” amount of OTs has passed is something adults would push, not the players…
Or having two talking head Presidents (but we might get that anyway)
David Byrne’s running against Tina Weymouth?
I think after 8 OT’s they should bring out each teams enforcer and have them go 3 rounds. The winner of the fight is the winner of tourney. Easy enough right?
Jama - it worked for Blades of Steel
I think after 8 OT’s they should bring out each teams enforcer and have them go 3 rounds. The winner of the fight is the winner of tourney. Easy enough right?
Chris Simon is intrigued by your proposal, and would like a brochure. (/deadspin)
Weymouth is a THINO (Talking Head in Name Only) and really supports the Tom Tom Club agenda.
Or having two talking head Presidents (but we might get that anyway)..
P3’s been watching too much Futurama…
http://www.gotfuturama.com/Multimedia/FrameGrabs/2ACV03/Grabs/pic00342.jpg
I honestly think that after 1 OT there should be a shootout…just like there is in the NHL…in college hockey there is only a tie…no shootouts after OT expires. I think in high school 2 OTs should be max…the kids are not at the age level or strength to play that long of hockey…if they can’t win it in that time frame than it should be called and both declared winners…if they added a shoot-out in high school and college hockey it would make the game fun for everyone and give the players a chance to show off their skills and get spotted by college/pro scouts
Lundeen-
I once went to the North Dakota High School State Hockey Tournament at the old Ralph in the mid 90’s. It was great. But it seems like the same 4 towns are represented every year: Fargo, Grand Forks, Minot, and Bismark. Grafton/Park River shows up sometimes too.
I also went to a hockey game between one of the Grand Forks schools and East Grand Forks. I believe the East Grand Forks mascot is the “Green Wave”. The students from the rival school sang “What do you get when you pick your nose? Green Wave! Green Wave!” I still think of that song whenever I hear something about Grand Forks.
Lundeen — how could I have forgotten that classic game? Shame on me.
Weymouth is a THINO (Talking Head in Name Only) and really supports the Tom Tom Club agenda.
+1
Parents are ruining youth sports. It’s easy to sit in the stands and clamor for a single champion…but in extenuating circumstances like an 8OT game, when neither team wants to walk away with a loss, AND when teams are consistently using 1-2 lines for most of the game, co-Championships are fine. The parents want “closure” and a single champion, and in most situations, so do the kids. But when its the kids who suffer because of 8OT games (and I mean suffer), I think a tie is fine. If you’ve ever played high school hockey, you’ll know how worn out you are after a 3 period game, let alone a game with an OT session tacked on.
Shootouts are exciting to watch, but ultimately bad for teams to have to play. Nothing worse than playing your tail off and having it come down to cheap break aways. It’d be like ending a basketball game with a dunk contest or a baseball game with a homerun derby. Fun to watch, horrible to have to play.
Clarence
The reason there was only 4 towns represented is because there are only 4 towns in North Dakota. Simple logic.
It’d be like ending a basketball game with a dunk contest
The McLovin’s thought this would happen when they had Gerald Green included in the KG trade. The league rebuffed them, and they sent Green packing.
Did the Strib forget about Daylight Savings over the weekend? At this rate Rand you’ll never get to leave the office.
jama - it’s like a mini-Y2K crisis at the Strib today…
There were eight 8-minute overtimes for that game. What is Minnesota’s length of overtimes?
Remember that album that Weymouth and Harrison put out about a decade ago, “No Talking, Just Head” or something like that because David Byrne wouldn’t participate? It was pretty terrible.
Fortunately Weymouth redeemed herself by working on the first Gorillaz album.
Anyways, I’m a fan of 3OTs of 4 on 4, then a shootout.
“Hold tight wait till the party’s over
Hold tight We’re in for nasty weather
There has got to be a way
Burning down the house”
Awarding dual champions is a noble idea, but the reality is that it could only happen in a championship game.
Any prior round could not have advanced two teams.
From that respect, they should have played until a winner was decided to honor all of the close games played in the playoffs.
As a former high school hockey player and Minnesota State Tournament participant, I think ending the game in a tie is was and is a bad decision. Sudden death overtime is what makes hockey great. Especially around tourney time. Having won and lost in overtime I can say that losing was very tough to take, but it made winning that much better. I would rather lose than end a game, no matter how long, in a tie. And for any playoff situation, shoot-outs are no good. Hockey is a team game and should the winner should be decided that way. The pros only do the shoot-outs for the fans. And once NHL playoffs start, the shoot-outs end.
Overtime is usually won by a field goal. That’s why it helps to have a good kicker.
roughkat
I thought the coin toss determined the winner. That’s what Terry Bradshaw told me.
I agree with most that they should have played it out or suspended play, but what no one has mentioned is they did what was right for the kids after 109 minutes of hockey. These kids had to be absolutley spent. There is no sense doing long term harm to a KID, just to decide a winner.
I thought overtime was decided by interceptions…or has Brett Favre steered me in the wrong direction?
saki: first OT in MN is 8 minutes; second OT is 17 minutes, then 8, then 17, and so on.
8 Overtimes? WOW. I survived (as a photographer) the triple-overtime game in Green Bay in 2006 between UWisc and Cornell (NY). And a concussion and the 4.5-hour drive home.
I can only imagine how painful this must have been to at least the photographers who were on their feet the whole time, not to mention the skaters, refs and fans. At least those three have places to sit when they need to. 
Well, except the refs… but there’s always intermission, right?
Ryan
Can’t you just take a pictures in the 1st period and leave? Isn’t that what early deadlines are for?
I hear Rand barely makes it through the National Anthem leaves and has his cronies text him the final.
Jama,
Sure I could, but I might not have the the replacement goalie that had 55 saves in overtime or the incredible shot that is the game winner (it really is an incredible shot)
But there are no deadlines on the internet and I was working for a dot-com.
High School Hockey should go to a shoot out format!!! Have them play one OT period of 5 minutes and If nobody scores they go to a shoot out. Reduces game time and ultimately it is more exciting for the fans :)!
you suspend and continue the next day. You cannot have a tie in the championship game. Give the kids some rest and finish it, declare a champ. Save the ties for regular season. Time to implement a shoot out scenario after 1 or 2 OT’s.
What happened to “It doesn’t matter if you win or lose, it’s how you play the game”? Both teams played well and deserved to be co-winners!
Minnesota State Boys’ Hockey Tournament Records:
Most overtimes: 11
Year: 1955
Final score: Minneapolis South 3 vs. Thief River Falls 2
A shootout to end a playoff game would be stupid, I think.
To end a regular season game, it’d be just fine, though, and I have no problem with it in the NHL.
They should have let the kids keep on playing until somebody won, or started again the next day at some time.
A friend of mine scored the winner in a section game when I was in the 10th grade, and it was in the 7th OT (pretty sure it was 7th, Champlin Park vs. Coon Rapids).
Overtimes are a lot of fun and help decide the game as a team, instead of something like a shootout making it individual.
Pat-
That’s nice and all, but ask the kids and it’s not true.
The team I coached last winter didn’t win a game. I can tell you that I never heard a “Yay! We got the fair play point!” Heck, the time we tied they were mad.
I was in a hockey game and it was five overtimes, then the Zamboni guy shouted “Screw you guys!” and then drove on the ice and started to clean it.
That was the end of that game!
Come on KJO:
Why should a high school game be set up to be more enjoyable for the fans?
Should we implement salary caps and free agency too? Maybe teams could apply the franchise tag to their best player so he can’t go to Juniors or the national team?
I remember a North Dakota Hockey championship game circa Lundeen’s era (late ’70s) between Grafton and Grand Forks Central (correct me if I have the teams wrong)that went eight OTs only to end with a Grafton player trying to clear a puck from behind his own net only to have it hit one of his own players skate’s and bounce past his own goalie. BOTH teams implored the ref not to count the goal but to no avail. Talk about the agony of defeat. The Grand Forks players afterward indicated they were more than willing to be considered co-champions. Sportsmanship is supposed to be more important than winning, even if some adults seem to forget that from time to time.
I can’t believe they ended in a tie. I would be irrate if I was on one of those teams. A shootout is NOT the way to decide the state champion either. They need to play until there is a winner. Period.
I don’t like shootouts at all because they decide a hockey contest in a way that doesn’t represent hockey in any way. I think that multiple overtimes are the way to go although there’s a certain sporting honor in acknowledging a hard fought tie at some point.
So if both teams won doesn’t that also mean that both teams lost?
That means neither team showed up
I recall 1985, Minnetonka/Jefferson. Game went to 4 OT’s, it was actually suspended after the 3rd OT, so the late game could be played, and resumed the next morning. That was a great game, and made for on of my best weekends in high school!
As a player i would have been irate, you play 109 minutes and no true winner i put all that effort, heart, and soul into years of outdoor ice, morning practice before school, and that much money to get to a state championship game and we call it a tie, that is BS, i can gaurantee that there is enough adreniline to keep going for whatever it takes. And there is no shout-out in playoffs that is just as cheap to call it a tie. By the way in MN its 8 minutes then 17 all the way intil it is done.
I stand corrected on the MN OT if what Jason says is true … haven’t seen a 3OT game for a while … maybe ever.
Why not go home and start up again the next day?
Bubble, I was a Skipper (class of ‘87 rulez 
and that (insert dashes between every word on your own if you feel so inclined) calling the game just so we could lose the next day on a shot that would never have gone past Naegele the night before game… well, that game sucked.
P.S. Five minute OTs are as lame as shootouts, which are as lame as suspending a game to pickup later, which is as lame as people who never played the game but nowhere near as lame as people who’ve played the game who suggest anything but play full period OTs to sudden death.
