I love coop, but I don’t love this quote from coop. Kinda sore loser energy with this and Mackinnons quotes. Canada has won the Olympics 4 on 4. No one was complaining then. Everyone knew the rules coming into the tournament. We all knew it was going to be 3 on 3. Canada literally won a game earlier in the tourney in OT. Were they complaining then? Canada literally started 3 of the top 6 players in the world on one line, Canada should’ve had the advantage in OT and they blew it. I guarantee you there would be no complaining about the format or 3 on 3 if Canada were to win. Or would they have said, “oh I’m glad we won, but it was 3 on 3. So it doesn’t really count as much…”
30 comments
he’s right though. they change the rules in OT so that it’ll end faster, that changes the game. still shoulda coulda woulda won, but im grateful those OT rules aren’t used in the playoffs
I love Coop and agree 100% with him as an American who was/is ecstatic the US won gold.
When I realized they were going 3 on 3 in OT I was disappointed. I’m all for 3 on 3 in non playoff games as no one wants to watch a 4 or 5 hour game. But the playoffs and medal games are different. I would have been fine playing 2,3,4 OTs yesterday.
He isn’t wrong but also shouldn’t be an excuse for Canada. 3 on 3 plays to Canada’s strengths more than anyone else’s because of the forward talent and speed that they have. They were better suited than anyone in the tournament to take advantage of the open space.
Ultimately their players didn’t execute. McDavid was loose with the puck in OT trying to do it all himself, Makar with a bad pinch and lost a puck battle, MacKinnon beaten to a puck by Werenski. Can’t fault anyone but themselves, got outworked when it mattered.
He’s not wrong. The Olympics shouldn’t use 3v3 at all. The NHL uses it only for regular season to end games faster. For the playoffs however, let the best team win, no matter how long it takes.
Now with that said, Canada had 3 of the best players in the world out there and still lost it. It is what it is. Canada had a ton of opportunities to win that game but they didn’t. They lost, USA won.
I mean… Is he wrong? Plenty of people were complaining about the 3 on 3 OT rule well before the gold medal game. There IS a reason why the playoffs aren’t 3 on 3 OT.
Sounds like he is just pushing for consideration of 5v5 overtime for 2030. Squeaky wheel kind of thing.
NFL changed their playoff overtime rules recently because they were silly. Who says something similar couldn’t happen here
Upvoting because it’s related to the Lightning, but I do agree with what he’s saying. It’s fine in the regular season when it’s designed to force an end to a game (and only 1 of 82). But using it in the Olympics knockout round where every game is a Game 7 makes it less enjoyable to see them decided by basically a skills competition.
Now, every country agreed to the format along with the IIHF, so what’s done is done. But that doesn’t mean we can’t also want it to be better in 2030.
Was he asked specifically about 3 on 3? Because if so, then whatever. I think most hockey fans and players would probably agree that 3 on 3 isn’t “real” hockey and if he was asked his thoughts on it then he shouldn’t be expected to lie and say he likes it just for the sake of decorum.
While I do agree. It’s the same format for everyone involved. Canada didn’t lose that game because of 3v3 OT. They lost because they squandered MANY opportunities during regulation.
Its hard to judge the quote without the actual question. He has said similar things after winning. I am sure you would get a similar answer from Mike Sullivan. You can win and still not like something. The fact that they lost the game shouldn’t diminish what is meant by what he said. That the Olympics should be more like the playoffs and do 5v5 overtime. I agree with that statement.
He’s not saying they would have won…and I don’t really look at it as complaining. I think we can all agree that you play so hard for 60 minutes and then you completely change how the game is played. It’s much more of a chance of a wild quick finish. I am okay for regular games it being 3 on 3…but when a medal is on the line…it should have been 5 on 5 IMO.
He’s not wrong but 3v3 should have favored Canada by every metric. The US left three of our top scorers at home. McJesus, Celebrini, and Makar should have been able to score 5 times before the US got 1. I’m glad it worked for the US, but I gave us little chance after regulation. And if they had played 5 more minutes of 3v3, the final probably would have been 6-2.
What these people fail to understand and differentiate is that the Olympics is not the same as the playoffs. Hockey is not the only sport that is going on. There are scheduling conflicts due to all that is happening. If these games go into 4 OT’s then that would push the other events back. Even if you only did 5v5 OT for the final game then you still would push the airtime for the other events back and risk not being done in time for closing ceremonies. The bottom line is, your team missed multiple opportunities to seal the deal in regulation whether that’s missing open nets or not capitalizing on a 5 on 3 PP. Bc of that, you are now a victim to whatever happens in OT. The games have to end at some point because this isn’t a tournament that is only about hockey, it’s about hundreds of other athletes and sports.
I’ll give Cooper the benefit of the doubt because we know he has never had loser energy much less sore loser energy. I think he’s right and while I get that the Olympics can’t and won’t put their schedule at risk with the possibility of a 3O, it just isn’t hockey.
I don’t see this as sore loser. He’s saying what the majority have been thinking throughout the finals, and knowing Coop it was probably more in a pensive philosophical way than a that’s why we lost way. It is just not the best timing to be saying it as the losing coach.
This was taken slightly out of context and makes is sound like he was complaining. He was specifically asked about 3 on 3 OT and was saying it was made for TV. He also followed it up with fact that he’s played in a 5 OT game and said, “nobody wants to watch a 6 1/2 hour hockey game”
Imagine if they had a 5 on 3 chance. Surely they would score. Right?
RIGHT???
Maybe instead tell McDavid on the bench not to play hero after his first rush at the net. But instead McDavid went back on the ice and turned the puck over playing hero a second time.
Whats the context of this quote? His postgame interview makes me think this is out of context.
Yeah this is bogus out of context – try watching the full interview, he made no such excuse.
Cooper is spot on. Regardless who wins or loses, 3:3 is a stupid way to decide these games.
Hopefully, Cooper and Hagel come back good and pissed and lead this team to a Stanley Cup victory.
I’m not even a Bolts fan (Avs/Sabres fan here) and watching the interview they really make this out to be more sore-loser than it is.
Almost in the same breath, says “but it’s still skill players out there making skill plays and the US has some skill players, as do we, and they made one more play than we did in overtime and you have to tip your cap to them.”
Later on, after being asked again, he answered “Listen the game is 60 minutes long and it should end. All the teams know the rules going into these beforehand, so you can’t come up here and say ‘oh we’re the losing team cause we lost 3 on 3, that’s not fair’, you knew the rules coming in. We won a game in this tournament 3 on 3[…]”
There’s nothing wrong here, the timing is the only thing that makes it look bad.
I hate that they don’t handle the medal games like playoff games. It worked out for team USA, but I would be bitching about the format if they had lost
He’s not wrong, it should’ve been said when they also won in overtime in other games.
But, everybody played about the same rules, and the team that won one by those rules.
This reminds me of the way people talk about the Covid cup, and try to dismiss the lightning for winning it, but if it was so easy, why didn’t other’s win?
I think coop is right, that 3 x 3 is not a game of hockey that they play 99% of the time, so why should that be a game is decided.
Did both teams play with the same rules or no?
Like everything else this isn’t the full quote
He’s not complaining and he’s not being a sore loser.
He’s stating a fact.
3 on 3 hockey is an entirely different game than 5 on 5.
And OT at the Olympic level being done 3 on 3 absolutely does give the impression of being done to hurry up and end a game. Shoot outs can go on for a long time, sudden death OT can go on for a long time if 5v5 or 4v4 but completely change up how the game is played and pull it into 3 on 3 and you’re extremely likely to have a game end faster. The dynamics shift and the game is a different beast.
Coop is simply stating a fact with this quote. Doesn’t make him a sore loser.
I thought 3 v 3 in the Olympics was stupid before the gold medal game. During the season, people work and have lives okay, makes sense. But the Olympics should have run like the playoffs.
Nah 3-3 is nonsense regardless of who wins. It’s not hockey.
People will take this as sore loser energy, and I absolutely get why. But I see this as Coop using his influence to try and get the Olympics changed for the better.
If him saying this has even a little impact on whether they think about changing the OT format for next Olympics, then I have no issues with this. Because he is right, it should be 5v5 OT.