News Article: How We'd Fix It: The NHL
- Thread starter deeshamrock
- Start date
Why make it even more complicate?
Straight Win or lose... no ties, no points. Just win or loss regardless of how and when the game is won
Last edited by a moderator:
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
i understand your point, I used to agree with you, but you cannot deny how exciting the playoff races have become because of the extra OT loser point. Ever since those points came in, teams and fans playoff watch since January. Now every game actually means something, whereas before, one hot streak in the end could jump you hurdles over teams.
sure, by the numbers, it doesn't make sense. But this isn't some resource we are trying to mathematically optimize, it's entertainment. And the extra OT loser point makes it more fun for everyone.
the same with the shootout. i LOVE the shootout. Fun as hell. I don't care what purists say, it's made the game 10x better than a tie.
really cool idea with the draft position in the article. it's a great way to make it more fun + give incentive to be spoilers for the playoff teams.
agentfouser
Playoffs?!?!
If there's no way to obtain a single point, then they should just do away with the whole point system.
I'd prefer an adaptation of the three-point system in European soccer: 3 for a win, 2 for a shoot-out or overtime win, 1 for a shootout or overtime loss, 0 for a regulation loss. Essentially, getting to overtime gives each team a point, and they then play for the third point available.
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
I'd like 3 points for a win in regulation or OT. 2 points for a shootout win. 1 point for a shootout loss. 0 points for a regulation/OT loss. That means you are handing out 3 points a game no matter the outcome. Give 3 points to the team that wins actually playing hockey.
In a perfect world, there would be no shootouts. I do like to watch them but I think they are a horrible way to decide a game. If we are going to use them (and they aren't going away) to decide a game, then the value of that win shouldn't be equal to a win where a team wins actually playing hockey.
This is exactly why the NHL won't change the current point system. It allows weaker teams to hang around far longer than they would under a 3 point scenario. It further enhances parity, and while I think the current system achieves this by illusion, it still gives the league the tight playoff races they need. There's always the situation where a team has a legitimate gripe that they would have made the playoffs if it wasn't for loser points, but you know what, the teams that truly have earned their right to compete for the cup make it anyways. If you want a shot, don't put yourself on the bubble.
I totally think the 3 point system makes far more sense, since shootouts are obviously here for good. I don't think it will ever be instituted though because the NHL is a champion of parity, and pride themselves on it. They love to use it as a success story of the cap, when the point system probably has just as much to do with parity (or more) than the actual salary cap does. The 3 point system rarely changes the standings, but it looks much better when your 8th place team is 15-20 points behind the top seed than 30-40 points.
Vamos Rafa
Registered User
Only thing I hate about separating shootout wins from regular wins is that saying a team's record with 4 numbers is a mouthful. "The Kings are currently 10-3-3-and-2." Ugh.
tigermask48
Maniacal Laugh
The system you propose doesn't really solve the underlying problem of teams playing for the OT point. It'd simply shift it to teams playing to get to the shootout. I agree with the part about a shootout win shouldn't be equal to a overtime win but I don't think the loser should ever get a point... That said while I don't like shootouts deciding games I think the casual fans seem to love it. It's a really exciting way to end a hockey game in a lot of my friends eyes. It seems to me that it's one of those things that hockey purists are just going to have to accept as the lesser evil and find something else to argue about.
Exactly
Keep it simple
You'll also see far less OT games if the cheater point goes away
If you're gonna get rid of the point for shootout/ot losses then get rid of the shootout. Have some kind of ot system where there's almost guaranteed someone to win it or at the worst have a tie. Hell, bring back the tie.
The present system works fine. Shootouts are far more entertaining than ties, which was the whole point in adding them. At some point you have to sacrifice a little purity for more entertainment value.
etherialone
dialed in your mom
My turn on the soapbox......
OK, most of you have probably read my psycho babbling about how players found guilty of "intent to injure infractions" are handled but here is a recap of how I would fix things given the chance.
First, when a player is assessed a five minute major penalty (or a match penalty) then that player should automatically be suspended until a hearing on the matter can be held. Same as it goes now.
Where I differ is in that when said hearing is held a special disciplinary panel should be gathered to determine if there was an actual intent to injure as a part of the infraction. If this panel agree's that the player in question was indeed guilty of intending to injure then that player should automatically be suspended from any and all NHL activities until the injured player returns to regular play.
Of course there would have to be the allowance for a conditional hearing in some situations (the injured player was retirement age or other such circumstances off the top of my head) where a player might be re-instated but other than that *the offending player will no longer be allowed to participate in any way or for any reason(s) in regards to official NHL business until the injured player is returned to regular play.
Remember this is only for the extreme cases where a player is intentionally injured and removed from regular play as a result. If a match penalty is assessed and is ruled to have intended to injure an opponent but said opponent misses no ice time then this rule wouldn't be applicable.
Once the injured player returns to regular play then and only then can you reapply to be reinstated as a member of the NHL. At such a time a penalty hearing will be held to determine if any additional time is required and the rest would be handled in the same manner as any other suspension.
This amendment to the existing rules are only proposed as an additional measure to be used when a player intentionally tries to injure an opposing player.
One of my favorite examples (sadly of many) is when Paul Kariya nearly had his head taken off by Gary Suter in 97. Suter should have never been allowed to play in the NHL ever again after that hit but instead he received a 4 game suspension.
The hit took Kariya out for close to a full season but many would argue that he never returned to being capable of playing at the same level again. Suter had caused a similar injury to 99 in 91 in an attempt to keep him from playing in the Canada Cup.
There are tons of other examples but in the Suter/Kariya situation there wouldn't have been any room for debate regarding how long the suspension should have been. Under my proposed amendment to the existing rules Suter would have sat pending a hearing (as usual) and then would have easily have been found to have intentionally been attempting to injure Kariya and would have been automatically suspended from being considered a member of the NHL and would have remained so until after Kariya had returned to normal play (of course pending a hearing to determine rather or not any further discipline would be required).
You can use the Bertuzzi incident as an extreme example of how this rule could work as well. In the Bert/Moore case Bertuzzi would never have been allowed to return to NHL play making the punishment fit the crime.
Seem a bit heavy handed? Maybe but if the NHL were serious about trying to eliminate head shots and loads of human excrement like Torres from plying their cheap and detrimental trade it is going to take a few serious changes to how things are today in order to do so.
Sorry about the rambling and if I repeat myself I am not getting too much sleep these days but I hope my point is made. Good or bad I wanted to put it up.
OK, most of you have probably read my psycho babbling about how players found guilty of "intent to injure infractions" are handled but here is a recap of how I would fix things given the chance.
First, when a player is assessed a five minute major penalty (or a match penalty) then that player should automatically be suspended until a hearing on the matter can be held. Same as it goes now.
Where I differ is in that when said hearing is held a special disciplinary panel should be gathered to determine if there was an actual intent to injure as a part of the infraction. If this panel agree's that the player in question was indeed guilty of intending to injure then that player should automatically be suspended from any and all NHL activities until the injured player returns to regular play.
Of course there would have to be the allowance for a conditional hearing in some situations (the injured player was retirement age or other such circumstances off the top of my head) where a player might be re-instated but other than that *the offending player will no longer be allowed to participate in any way or for any reason(s) in regards to official NHL business until the injured player is returned to regular play.
Remember this is only for the extreme cases where a player is intentionally injured and removed from regular play as a result. If a match penalty is assessed and is ruled to have intended to injure an opponent but said opponent misses no ice time then this rule wouldn't be applicable.
Once the injured player returns to regular play then and only then can you reapply to be reinstated as a member of the NHL. At such a time a penalty hearing will be held to determine if any additional time is required and the rest would be handled in the same manner as any other suspension.
This amendment to the existing rules are only proposed as an additional measure to be used when a player intentionally tries to injure an opposing player.
One of my favorite examples (sadly of many) is when Paul Kariya nearly had his head taken off by Gary Suter in 97. Suter should have never been allowed to play in the NHL ever again after that hit but instead he received a 4 game suspension.
The hit took Kariya out for close to a full season but many would argue that he never returned to being capable of playing at the same level again. Suter had caused a similar injury to 99 in 91 in an attempt to keep him from playing in the Canada Cup.
There are tons of other examples but in the Suter/Kariya situation there wouldn't have been any room for debate regarding how long the suspension should have been. Under my proposed amendment to the existing rules Suter would have sat pending a hearing (as usual) and then would have easily have been found to have intentionally been attempting to injure Kariya and would have been automatically suspended from being considered a member of the NHL and would have remained so until after Kariya had returned to normal play (of course pending a hearing to determine rather or not any further discipline would be required).
You can use the Bertuzzi incident as an extreme example of how this rule could work as well. In the Bert/Moore case Bertuzzi would never have been allowed to return to NHL play making the punishment fit the crime.
Seem a bit heavy handed? Maybe but if the NHL were serious about trying to eliminate head shots and loads of human excrement like Torres from plying their cheap and detrimental trade it is going to take a few serious changes to how things are today in order to do so.
Sorry about the rambling and if I repeat myself I am not getting too much sleep these days but I hope my point is made. Good or bad I wanted to put it up.
In regard to the "loser" point:
PRO:
It makes the regular season tight as a drum. I have never seen anything like the last few seasons...the playoff spots are always in a flux, never a dull moment.
CON:
Teams play for it. You can see it in the style in the last 5 minutes or so of a 3rd period where the game is tied. There is just no getting around to it. And a lot of games really do end up going to the shootout...where you would think 4-on-4 skating over 5 minutes would produce more goals, it just doesn't happen.
PRO:
It makes the regular season tight as a drum. I have never seen anything like the last few seasons...the playoff spots are always in a flux, never a dull moment.
CON:
Teams play for it. You can see it in the style in the last 5 minutes or so of a 3rd period where the game is tied. There is just no getting around to it. And a lot of games really do end up going to the shootout...where you would think 4-on-4 skating over 5 minutes would produce more goals, it just doesn't happen.
etherialone
dialed in your mom
I really, really dislike hoping games don't go to OT when it comes to watching rival teams play. Give me a team to root for instead of a score. All games should be a competition for the same number of points, no matter what.
It's a bit annoying, but overall I don't think it's a big deal really. We're already separating losses and overtime losses. Besides, now that inter-division playoffs are back I don't think talking about records will be as important as before, you'd rather talk about your position relative to the other teams in your division. Like saying the Kings are in second, two points behind the Sharks, instead of listing the full record. You're only really competing against the other teams in your division for playoff spots.
It's a bit annoying, but overall I don't think it's a big deal really. We're already separating losses and overtime losses. Besides, now that inter-division playoffs are back I don't think talking about records will be as important as before, you'd rather talk about your position relative to the other teams in your division. Like saying the Kings are in second, two points behind the Sharks, instead of listing the full record. You're only really competing against the other teams in your division for playoff spots.
Herby
Now I can die in peace
It's ridiculous that some games are three point games and some aren't. I am completely on board with making every game a three point game. If you win in regulation you get three points, if you win in a shootout or OT you get two, keep the loser point.
It was ridiculous that the Kings had 25 ROW last season and the Sharks had 17 and only finished two points behind the Kings.
Think how much more intense teams would go for it if they could get three points and hold their opponents to zero, especially in divisional games.
It was ridiculous that the Kings had 25 ROW last season and the Sharks had 17 and only finished two points behind the Kings.
Think how much more intense teams would go for it if they could get three points and hold their opponents to zero, especially in divisional games.
HYORI 1963
Grit & Character
I like this 3-2-1 ruling:
3 pts for the win in regulation
2 pts for the win in OT
1 pt for the win in SO
Sorry, no loser point.
By offering the 3 pts for the regulation win and 2 pts for the OT win, it should make for a more competitive game. Which is what we all want.
3 pts for the win in regulation
2 pts for the win in OT
1 pt for the win in SO
Sorry, no loser point.
By offering the 3 pts for the regulation win and 2 pts for the OT win, it should make for a more competitive game. Which is what we all want.
I got to hand it to you, You constantly hop back on the bike after you fall into a colvet
Though I don't agree with half points. The overtime shootout system is fine how it is.
KBA4life
Registered User
I wouldn't mind 4on4 for the first 5 mins in OT followed by 3on3 for another 5. I think ties in that scenario would be okay because the OT action is guaranteed to entertain. A few years back against the Stars there were coincidental minor penalties right when OT started, thus, a full two minutes of 3on3 ensued. It was awesome.
