ESPN looks at the standings with different point systems
- Thread starter Adam Fox Time
- Start date
txpd
Registered User
Again, it doesn't make more sense. I looked quickly. Washington, Boston, St Louis have all played a third of their games to overtime. If you think that making a divisional/conference game a 6pt swing rather than a 4pt swing wont push more games to OT, you are just wrong.
They will probably always capitulate to casual fans that hate them regarding ties. It's all about television. Ties would happen far more often in the NHL than in the NFL, the biggest North American league that allows for the possibility of ties. Most other leagues have OT play that can commence immediately, but hockey has the problem that the ice needs to be resurfaced, so it's either a finite period of OT (I don't know how much longer is feasible the ice becomes too poor, but I assume it's not much more than 5 minutes) or another extended break to bring out the Zamboni. Playoffs are a different beast but again, likely due to television, it's probably not practical for the regular season given how often it happens.
As long as there is a shootout, there has to be some version of the loser point. It's just a gimmick to entertain casual fans and award a winner but it's too silly to be of consequence (I cannot for the life of me understand how something like the FIFA World Cup can come down to penalty kicks). Some would argue the same about 3 on 3 OT. But again, hockey has a television problem.
3-2-1 I think would be the best system given the television problem. Every game is worth 3 points. It would put extra emphasis on regulation wins and make teams play harder at the end of the 3rd. There could even conceivably be times when teams have to pull their goalie in tie games in a end of regular season playoff push. All of which would be good for television.
As long as there is a shootout, there has to be some version of the loser point. It's just a gimmick to entertain casual fans and award a winner but it's too silly to be of consequence (I cannot for the life of me understand how something like the FIFA World Cup can come down to penalty kicks). Some would argue the same about 3 on 3 OT. But again, hockey has a television problem.
3-2-1 I think would be the best system given the television problem. Every game is worth 3 points. It would put extra emphasis on regulation wins and make teams play harder at the end of the 3rd. There could even conceivably be times when teams have to pull their goalie in tie games in a end of regular season playoff push. All of which would be good for television.
So basically, barely anything changes. In that case, could everyone complaining please stop whining about something so trivial?
Byrral
Registered User
3 on 3 OT does not suck. It's really exciting. Otherwise don't know what the answer is. I would vote for the 3-2-1 even though I understand why people hate the loser point.
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
My team gets 2 points for a win
My team gets 1 point for a shootout loss
My team gets 0 points for a overtime and regulation loss
Guess what my team will do late in a tied game and in overtime? They will play for a shootout so that they will get 1 point at the very least with a chance at 2 if they win in a shootout.
You play the game to win so when there are ties its bad because it makes you feel empty as if everything was for nothing and you don't have the thrill of victory and agony of defeat which you learn a lot from. When I play against someone in sports or video games I would rather lose then get a tie that is how bad ties are to me. If you bring back ties you will have teams play for a tie late in games resulting in so many damn ties as we had seen before.
2-1-0 seems to promote more parity, definitely believe if any NHL official saw this chart it might make them think about going to that formula. Obviously, you have to take into account teams might change their strategy with no OTL point.
txpd
Registered User
Don't thnk the NHL governors will ever have the votes to do that. Getting zero points after a regulation tie because your team lost in a gimmick isn't going to fly with some teams
Cane mutiny
Ahoy_Aho
- Sep 5, 2006
- 1,951
- 1,876
2 pts Reg win
1 pt OT/SO win (shoulda got it done in reg)
0 pts for a loss
This would stop the last 5 min glide to secure a point in OT when it's a tie.
1 pt OT/SO win (shoulda got it done in reg)
0 pts for a loss
This would stop the last 5 min glide to secure a point in OT when it's a tie.
tenken00
Oh it's going down in Chinatown
- Jan 29, 2010
- 9,895
- 10,131
Team point records are meaningless. That's no reason for inaction.
The more I think about it, the more I like 3-2-1. Biggest thing it has going for it is that all games have the same point value - 3 points will be awarded in every NHL game. Under the current system, some games are worth 2 points and some games are worth 3 points - it's dumb.
I'm worried this would bring back dead-puck hockey where teams get a 1-goal lead and then immediately go into a defensive trap.
Clamshells
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Aug 11, 2009
- 2,486
- 1,306
2 points for any win
1 point for a regulation tie
I think that is a fair and balanced system that keeps the historical value of the point system intact.
1 point for a regulation tie
I think that is a fair and balanced system that keeps the historical value of the point system intact.
The Panther
Registered User
I agree with you. This is the best option.
The 3-2-1-0 thing makes some sense as well, but it's not gonna happen for two reasons:
1) pisses on the 100+ year history of the NHL (where a win has always been two points); and
2) would create too huge of imbalances between teams in the standings (drive down fan interest)
So, the best option -- which is consistent with the history of the League, and does away with the ridiculous concept of "three point games" -- is just as you suggest.
You realize this is completely pointless, right? With a 3point system, regulation wins are worth more than OT wins, so teams would actually try to win during regulation instead of just starting to "play for the point" with some 10 minutes left, giving us pond hockey while both teams wait for regulation to end. You can't just directly convert them.
Jumptheshark
Rebooting myself
Some people might be too young to remember what was happening during the dead puck era. Fans were streaming out of buildings with 5-10 minutes left in the 3rd period of tie games. It looked horrible. The outcome of the game was far too predictable.
As much as some people may not like it, the shootout is far better than the alternative during the dead puck era.
Satire
Registered User
- Nov 20, 2016
- 2,940
- 3,725
It was to encourage teams from turtling all OT back in the day. I think with the introduction of 3 on 3 they should just play that until someone wins. 2 points for winner and 0 for loser.
I would propose the revolutionary concept of the winner gets a W and the loser gets a big ole’ L.
Nemesis Prime
Registered User
Extend 3on3 OT to 10 minutes.
Regulation/OT win = 2pt
Regulation/OT loss = 0pt
If no winner after OT, it's a tie and split the 2pt.
Points for losing is dumb and trying to justify it is equally dumb.
Regulation/OT win = 2pt
Regulation/OT loss = 0pt
If no winner after OT, it's a tie and split the 2pt.
Points for losing is dumb and trying to justify it is equally dumb.
In a 3-2-1system it is theoretically possible that even if you win every game but only in OT/SO you may not win your division.
On the other hand, then it could be ssid that not winning in 60 minutes is not winning at all.
On the other hand, then it could be ssid that not winning in 60 minutes is not winning at all.
