3v3 is my favorite hockey to watch-No OT or 5 minutes of 5v5 OT
-3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss
The best thing would be 5 points for a regulation win, 4 points for a overtime win, 3 points for a shoot out win, 2 points for a shoot out loss, 1 point for a overtime loss and 0 points for a regulation loss. That way teams would be extra motivated with the big 5 point price for winning a game in regulation.
I can't be the only one that hates when the score is tied at the end of the third period, and both teams start playing defensively to protect the score and make sure they secure a point. They should be fighting, whey should play to win the game.
What if we change the point system so that a Regulation win gets you 3 points, an OT/SO win gets you 2 points, an OT/SO loss gets you 1 point and a Regulation loss gets you no point?
Would that make the teams fight more on the ice? Would that be viable? What would be the downsides?
Abolish OT, end the game with a tie after regulation. Problem solved. Except in the playoffs.
Blasphemy! Next you're going to tell me a professional league will bow down to a communist country.Millionth time this has been mentioned, The Bettman point will never go away as it produces artificial parity thus making more money for the owners. They really don't care about the integrity of the game.
Abolish OT, end the game with a tie after regulation. Problem solved. Except in the playoffs.
Then make wins worth 3 and ties worth 1, like soccer did to solve the problem a long time ago.Congrats you brought back ties something so many people hate and will result in teams playing not to lose late in games resulting in boring play and so many ties yuck.
No, there stupid gimmicks which lead to an inaccurate result.Awful. Solve one problem and create a bigger problem, deciding a game without a winner...I don't care if 3v3 OT and the Shootout are 'tacky', they're entertaining. Much better than ending in a tie.
Then make wins worth 3 and ties worth 1, like soccer did to solve the problem a long time ago.
I have no problem with it determining that too teams were worthy of equal points. It's way better than 3 on 3 or a shoot-out which are both jokes.Soccer is different then Hockey regardless you would still have ties which suck so much just hate hate hate them.
1)**** SoccerThen make wins worth 3 and ties worth 1, like soccer did to solve the problem a long time ago.
.
I have no problem with it determining that too teams were worthy of equal points. It's way better than 3 on 3 or a shoot-out which are both jokes.
I'd rather 3 points per win and 1 for a tie than 3-2-1 or anything that expedites the game. I mean, I'd be fine with 2 for a win and 1 for tie.1)**** Soccer
2) why make it more complicated?
Why reward teams for not trying to win and create more ties? while making it more complicated and harder for new and casual fans?I'd rather 3 points per win and 1 for a tie than 3-2-1 or anything that expedites the game. I mean, I'd be fine with 2 for a win and 1 for tie.
I don't care about appeasing casual fans. I'm giving my opinion on what I think is better. I think appeasement because people can't handle the concept of an equally played game is bastardizing it for ratings.Why reward teams for not trying to win and create more ties? while making it more complicated and harder for new and casual fans?
Abolish OT, end the game with a tie after regulation. Problem solved. Except in the playoffs.
Why reward teams for not trying to win and create more ties? while making it more complicated and harder for new and casual fans?
Why reward teams for a tie?3 for a win and 1 for a tie, no OT.... actually I think there is a lot more incentive to win the game in such a system than 2-1, and there is a pretty good chance one of the team will want this badly near the 60 minutes mark, especially towards the end of the season.
It's exciting because it creates insnaely back and forth play, but its a joke in that it expediates a result, which is why I'm against it.3v3 is actually fun tho. Replace the shootout with ties.