It is time for a new points format. 3 points for Regulation win.

[Stephen Gionta]

League's true best teams aren't given a chance to separate themselves from the pack.

Three points should be given out every game.

3 points for regulation win.
2 points for overtime/shootout win.
1 point for overtime/shootout loss.
0 points for regulation loss.

Not to mention the overtime format should be changed to 10 minute overtime. 4 on 4 until 6:00 remaining - next whistle it goes to 3 on 3. Shootout after this if no goal is scored. NHLPA won't like it, but fans will love it. Shootout has to stay for the "casual" fan because they often go to games and hope for a shootout.

Click to read more...

 

[StreetHawk]

Owners like getting the extra 100 or what certain points that get handed out each season. Keeps teams in the hint, thus allowing teams to sell tickets later in the season cause the games are meaningful.

NHL won't make the change. At least would love to see the echl try this format for a couple of seasons to get a sense of how coaches play out the final few minutes of close games.

 

[The Macho King]

League's true best teams aren't given a chance to separate themselves from the pack.

Three points should be given out every game.

3 points for regulation win.
2 points for overtime/shootout win.
1 point for overtime/shootout loss.
0 points for regulation loss.

Not to mention the overtime format should be changed to 10 minute overtime. 4 on 4 until 6:00 remaining - next whistle it goes to 3 on 3. Shootout after this if no goal is scored. NHLPA won't like it, but fans will love it. Shootout has to stay for the "casual" fan because they often go to games and hope for a shootout.

This is great if your goal is to create separation in the standings.

But it's not. The owners want tighter standings to keep fan interest up.

And here's the thing - I don't think they're wrong. They're only wrong if the best are suffering. The standings flips when you run out what happens are generally minor, and generally among those in the middle of the pack anyway. If that's the case, why not create a system that artificially contracts standings if the outcome isn't really different?

 

[deckercky]

There's usually 1-2 anomaly teams per year that this would actually affect, but it would overall make very little difference in the standings.

 

[LeHab]

There's usually 1-2 anomaly teams per year that this would actually affect, but it would overall make very little difference in the standings.

There is more at stake. When a game is tied late, current system provides less incentives for teams to take risks (more D) in order to win in regulation.

 

[Bladerunner]

League's true best teams aren't given a chance to separate themselves from the pack.

Three points should be given out every game.

3 points for regulation win.
2 points for overtime/shootout win.
1 point for overtime/shootout loss.
0 points for regulation loss.

Not to mention the overtime format should be changed to 10 minute overtime. 4 on 4 until 6:00 remaining - next whistle it goes to 3 on 3. Shootout after this if no goal is scored. NHLPA won't like it, but fans will love it. Shootout has to stay for the "casual" fan because they often go to games and hope for a shootout.

Every season this topic appears a few times.

I've been preaching this for many years (and I'll add I'm a statistician).
The current points system is very gimmicky as some games are worth 50% more than others.

What's ironic if not comical, is that supposedly most fans didn't like ties and wanted a decisive result for all games. Yet the present system makes games that end in a regulation tie worth 50% more?! In effect tied in regulation games are now more important than before when every game was worth 2 pts. I might quibble w/you on the OT. I think the present format is fine. Most teams struggle too much as it is on b2b's. Adding 5 minutes will make it worse.

But it's not. The owners want tighter standings to keep fan interest up.

Macho Man, this is true. I did a modest study of this some years ago. No surprise that on average, it's the weaker teams that benefit from 3 pt games. Therefore (and it's more of an illusion) it makes it look they're "in the playoff hunt" deeper into the season, keeping more fans hopes up.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I agree 100% with the OP, and this is the format that needs to happen.

There's nothing wrong with the current format, but the OP's format is the one that makes the most fundamental sense.

 

[yangmang]

stick with 2 points its much easier to go with

 

[Brobust]

I like the parity. About 25-26 teams have playoff aspirations right now and will continue to have them until about game 60. How is that less entertaining than the idea of creating separation?

 

[SladeWilson23]

Owners like getting the extra 100 or what certain points that get handed out each season. Keeps teams in the hint, thus allowing teams to sell tickets later in the season cause the games are meaningful.

NHL won't make the change. At least would love to see the echl try this format for a couple of seasons to get a sense of how coaches play out the final few minutes of close games.

This is not the way owners should try and sell tickets.

This is great if your goal is to create separation in the standings.

But it's not. The owners want tighter standings to keep fan interest up.

And here's the thing - I don't think they're wrong. They're only wrong if the best are suffering. The standings flips when you run out what happens are generally minor, and generally among those in the middle of the pack anyway. If that's the case, why not create a system that artificially contracts standings if the outcome isn't really different?

Because it makes more sense to make winning in regulation wins worth more than gimmick wins. Regardless, I feel the whole "it keeps things interesting" angle is a cop out. The most important thing regarding parity is talent parity, and not in the standings.

There's usually 1-2 anomaly teams per year that this would actually affect, but it would overall make very little difference in the standings.

That's not the point. It just makes too much fundamental sense to have regulation wins worth more than gimmick wins.

 

[SladeWilson23]

I like the parity. About 25-26 teams have playoff aspirations right now and will continue to have them until about game 60. How is that less entertaining than the idea of creating separation?

Parity is only important when it comes to roster talent.

 

[deckercky]

That's not the point. It just makes too much fundamental sense to have regulation wins worth more than gimmick wins.

Overtime wins are not gimmick wins.

Shootout wins are currently worth less than regulation and overtime wins.

Problem is already solved.

 

[The Macho King]

This is not the way owners should try and sell tickets.



Because it makes more sense to make winning in regulation wins worth more than gimmick wins. Regardless, I feel the whole "it keeps things interesting" angle is a cop out. The most important thing regarding parity is talent parity, and not in the standings.



That's not the point. It just makes too much fundamental sense to have regulation wins worth more than gimmick wins.

You realize making conclusory statements is not actually arguing the point, right?

OP says "why" - posters say "well, here are the reasons" - saying "that's a cop out" doesn't refute those points.

 

[DopeyFish]

how about 10 minute 3v3 OT

no points for an OT loss

no points for a tie

 

[Brobust]

Parity is only important when it comes to roster talent.

And that's almost impossible to attain, so this artificial parity will have to do.

 

[SladeWilson23]

You realize making conclusory statements is not actually arguing the point, right?

OP says "why" - posters say "well, here are the reasons" - saying "that's a cop out" doesn't refute those points.

Well like people have said, the 3 point system won't actually change the standings that much. My point is, teams play their hardest all the time no matter what.

 

[SladeWilson23]

And that's almost impossible to attain, so this artificial parity will have to do.

Except the league already has tons of roster talent parity.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Regulation and OT win = 2 points
SO win = 1 point
Any type of loss = 0 points

Stop rewarding teams for losing.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Overtime wins are not gimmick wins.

Shootout wins are currently worth less than regulation and overtime wins.

Problem is already solved.

3 on 3 OT wins are definitely gimmick wins. Hell even 4 on 4 OT wins are gimmick wins.

how about 10 minute 3v3 OT

no points for an OT loss

no points for a tie

Punishing teams for losing in OT is the worst thing you could do because you can't punish teams for losing in a gimmick. Only way you can have a format where the OT loser gets zero points is if OT is 5 on 5 and continuous.

We'll never see continuous 5 on 5 OT during the regular season so we can never see 0 points for an OT loss.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Regulation and OT win = 2 points
SO win = 1 point
Any type of loss = 0 points

Stop rewarding teams for losing.

Only way you can do this is if OT is 5 on 5 and continuous.

As long as OT is a gimmick, you simply cannot make OT losses worth zero points.

 

[Jozay]

The league doesnt want any teams seperating themselves from the pack.

 

[HaNotsri]

The SHL has this system and while it is fair a 52 game season feels too long. It’s clear pretty early which the top teams are and then you just wait for the playoffs. While the teams in the NHL are more evenly matched I think it’s a bad idea. Your system would be fair but turn the regular season into even more of a slog.

 

[Canada4Gold]

NHL won't do it because it would screw up historical records. But you could just scale everything down by multiplying every number by 2/3 which then results in 2, 1.33333..., 0.66666..., 0 but they won't do that understandably because everyone hates fractional numbers. I could see 2, 1.5, 0.5, 0 being a decent compromise, still fractional numbers but it's half points which most people can comprehend.

 

[BladeRunner66]

Sidney the Kidney said: ↑

Regulation and OT win = 2 points
SO win = 1 point
Any type of loss = 0 points

Stop rewarding teams for losing.​

Only way you can do this is if OT is 5 on 5 and continuous.

As long as OT is a gimmick, you simply cannot make OT losses worth zero points.

Then make it less of a gimmick, continuous takes too much of a toll on players who already have a heavy schedule.

4th period = 10 min. of 4 on 4 and 10 min. of 3 on 3.

Fair compromise?

 

[SladeWilson23]

Sidney the Kidney said: ↑

Regulation and OT win = 2 points
SO win = 1 point
Any type of loss = 0 points

Stop rewarding teams for losing.​

Then make it less of a gimmick, continuous takes too much of a toll on players who already have a heavy schedule.

4th period = 10 min. of 4 on 4 and 10 min. of 3 on 3.

Fair compromise?

I agree continuous 5 on 5 OT is not an option, but it's the only way to make OT not a gimmick.

4 on 4 is a gimmick.
3 on 3 is more of a gimmick.
Shootouts are the gimmickiest of them all.

As long as OT is a gimmick, the 3-2-1 format is the best way to go. That being said, I actually don't have a problem with the current format. But people tend to misconstrue the current format.