Olympic hockey needs to scrap 3-on-3 overtime 

The past two days of Olympic hockey have provided several thrilling and dramatic finishes across both the men's and women's tournaments. 

Wednesday's quarterfinal action in the men's tournament saw Canada, the United States and Finland all advance to the medal round with overtime wins.

On Thursday, Switzerland took bronze in the women's tournament with a 2-1 upset overtime win against Sweden, and then the United States capped off its third gold medal with a thrilling 2-1 overtime win against Canada that saw them tie the game late, and then win with a highlight reel goal from Megan Keller.

The drama? Incredible.

The storylines? Fantastic.

There was only one thing that took some of the steam away from it all — the 3-on-3 overtime format that the IIHF now uses to decide tie games.

Olympic medals should not be decided by 3-on-3 hockey

This is not the first time 3-on-3 hockey has been utilized in the Olympics as a tiebreaker, but it is getting the most attention in the 2026 games for two primary reasons: The NHL players are participating in the men's tournament for the first time since 2014, while two medals in the women's tournament were decided with it. 

The IIHF has been using 3-on-3 overtime in IIHF World Championship and Olympic games since 2019, but haven't really seen it in as many big moments where the most possible eyes will be on it.

Not as many people watch the World Championships compared to the Olympics, and now we are seeing medals decided by it. 

Men's Olympic hockey interest dwindled without the NHL players in the 2022 games.  

Because of those two factors, it's going to get attention now. 

While 3-on-3 hockey is a more wide-open game, and tends to be wildly exciting, it seems like a gimmicky way to decide the biggest games. 

And that is because it is a gimmick. 

It's not the same style of hockey as 5-on-5, and it's a dramatically different twist from what you get during regulation or regular 5-on-5 hockey. Weird bounces, fluky plays and random moments play a bigger role in 3-on-3 than simply being the better team. 

It's harder to practice. It's harder to prepare for. It's harder to coach. 

The NHL has used 3-on-3 overtime to break ties in regular-season games for a few years now. That was done not only to make overtime more exciting, but also to increase the odds that a team wins in overtime and prevents games from getting to a shootout. 

They do not use 3-on-3 overtime in the playoffs. They simply play as many 20-minute, 5-on-5 periods as necessary to break the tie. 

While that may not have the same sort of back-and-forth excitement as 3-on-3, it does present a different type of drama and intrigue. It also feels like you're watching the same game, with the same pressure you had been watching for the previous 60 minutes. 

It creates more of an opportunity for the better team to eventually prevail instead of a lucky bounce or break determining it. There is also the drama and intrigue that comes from a double-or triple-overtime game keeping you on the edge of your seat for five or six hours. Time-consuming? Potentially. But it might be the most stressful and dramatic watch in major North American sports. 

This format takes away a lot of that excitement. 

It would be one thing to use it in the group stage of the tournament. But in potential elimination games it just seems like a big whiff by the IIHF. 

You wouldn't decide the Super Bowl with 7-on-7 football. 

You wouldn't decide the Stanley Cup with a 3-on-3 overtime.

You shouldn't decide Olympic gold with it, either.