3-2-1 point system - 2016/17 what if

[Braunbaer]

I don't know anything about soccer, but I'm pretty sure they don't change OT rules. Assuming I'm not wrong, do you think they should use W-L instead of their point system?

That sport has its flaws, but the points- and OT-systems are just perfect.

The reason is ... we don't need to build an artifical winner in regular season games.
Overtimes are only necessary in knock-out games. There is absolutely no need to force a winner via coin flip just so you have a winner.

As for the points-system: Football used to have a 2-1-0 system. That sucked since it doesn't punish tied games. It was changed and everybody is happy with 3-1-0, because THAT gave the teams the incentive to play for the win.
Of course, it also matter that every game of the season counts and teams can't rely on getting hot in April and win it all.

So, no. They will never go to W-L, because forcing a winner via shootout in a regular season game is unacceptable.

 

[Viqsi]

NFL OT rules aren't the same and they have a strict W-L-T.

And it's hated and derided as "a coin flip determines the winner". Seriously; I'm not an NFL fan at all and yet I've heard of that one.

 

[DVon Du Nord]

I've been an advocate of the 3 point system since the Shootout was introduced. However the way I'd like to see it implemented is where people tend to disagree with me. I'd like to see 3 points for any ROW, 0 for OTL and we can get rid of that stat. 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss. Every game awards the same amount of points and teams hungry for points will have more reason to end it before shootout.

I wonder what the standings would look like then.

 

[Canada4Gold]

They should do this.

2 reasons have floated around for why they don't. 1. The history books, 2. the current system creates artificial parity. The history books are skewed anyway as the addition of 3 point games and the loser point makes it easier for the teams now than in the past when it was straight W/L/T. Artificial parity is a myth. Teams would be further behind from a gross points standpoint, but they can earn 50% more points each and every game. It balances out. Looking at the OP chart, the Leafs would have still needed to beat the Pens or CBJ to make the playoffs, and the West was still a complete blowout under the 3 point system.

It could create artificial parity in comparison to the 3 point system, if the team in 8th is winning a bunch of regulation games, while the team in 9th is getting a bunch of OT/SO wins and loser points, but in general it's not a closer race with the current system than it would be with a 3 point system.

 

[Dust]

Interesting and thanks for doing that up.

Surprising that even using the 3 point system all the playoff teams remain unchanged. The order changed a little bit, but not a huge amount.

 

[Caeldan]

Generally I want 3 point regulation wins, 2-1 split in OT/SO.
Though thinking about it, I'd be just as happy with 3 point regulation win, 1 point OT/SO win and 0 points for a loss.

Why? Because that system would force coaches to be aggressive and not sit on a lead. Right there is a potential solution to increasing scoring.
How many teams get that 1 or 2 goal lead and just try to sit and play defensive hockey the rest of the game?
How many do you think would do it if a late tying goal means you lose 2 or 3 points?

Just eyeballing it, looks roughly around 20% of all games go into OT/SO... probably around 10-15 games for most teams that they won in OT/SO. That's a fair number of points to give up if you were the team with the lead in most of those (which I don't have the numbers for).

 

[txpd]

Every game should be worth the same amount of points. The 3-2-1 system does exactly that. If the game ends in regulation, three points are handed out. If it goes to OT/SO, three points are handed out.

That's the way it should be.

I don't know why people don't think this thru. This is a defense first league. Two division or conference rivals meet, the damage of losing in regulation is far worse with 3 points instead of 2. six point swing rather than 4. the risk v reward will push these coaching into more conservative game planning not more aggressive. You get more overtime and SO. Not less.

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

I don't know why people don't think this thru. This is a defense first league. Two division or conference rivals meet, the damage of losing in regulation is far worse with 3 points instead of 2. six point swing rather than 4. the risk v reward will push these coaching into more conservative game planning not more aggressive. You get more overtime and SO. Not less.

6 point swing but 50% more points are being rewarded so it isn't any different.

We could divide the points by 50% if you'd like

2-1.33-0.67-0

 

[Sansbacon]

Which team has been bumped out of the playoff picture due to an illogical system?

I never claimed that it actually happened, and I'm definitely not going back year-by-year to check and see. But it's not a stretch to imagine that a 3-2-1 points system might alter the standings a bit, which means some bubble teams could have been affected in years past with a different points system since the '04-'05 lockout.

 

[rboomercat90]

And it's hated and derided as "a coin flip determines the winner". Seriously; I'm not an NFL fan at all and yet I've heard of that one.

The "coin flip" doesn't determine the winner in the NFL anymore. The rules have been changed. Unless the team receiving the ball first scores a touchdown the other team still gets an opportunity with the ball.

 

[Kale Makar]

I don't like it because it makes the Avs in last place by an even higher margin

 

[Viqsi]

The "coin flip" doesn't determine the winner in the NFL anymore. The rules have been changed. Unless the team receiving the ball first scores a touchdown the other team still gets an opportunity with the ball.

...y'know, I take people down so many times for arguing from ignorance that you'd think I'd know not to do it myself.