Count Ottawa Senators captain Daniel Alfredsson - one of the game's more thoughtful players - as a non-supporter of 3-on-3 hockey in overtime.
The Detroit Red Wings suggestion, to be debated this week by the league's general managers, would have overtime tweaked slightly to turn to three a side when four aside had had its chance, the theory being that fewer players on the ice would open up matters more to a real goal that would settle matters rather than the shootout.
"I don't see it making a big difference," Alfredsson said today in Ottawa, where his Senators are preparing to meet the Atlanta Thrashers tonight.
Alfredsson has been around long enough to remember how four-on-four in overtime made "a big difference" when it was first introduced, only to have coaches over the years take it apart piece by piece to the point where, today, sudden death overtime is just as often sudden boring overtime, with teams more willing to take their chances on the shootout.
"The same thing is going to happen" with three, Alfredsson is convinced, with coaches who will "make sure you have three back all the time."
A better solution, he suggests tongue in cheek, might be to go all the way.
"One on one."