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

[SladeWilson23]

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

But as it's been stated before, the 3-2-1 system won't actually create that big of a separation in the standings.

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.

The record book angle is also a cop out.

 

[BladeRunner66]

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.

Well, longer 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 would be somewhat less of a gimmick than that 5 min. 3 on 3.

This said, it won't happen, NHLPA AND league doesn't want endless tiring and boring scoreless games. It's a trend really, look at baseball with the pitcher timer coming up next season.

They want it quick AND fast as players tend to slow down their skating as games strech on.

 

[Ezekial]

Yes, I think if 3 points are possible in a game that each game should be worth it. But, you know, parity. Won't happen.

 

[Bladerunner]

Overtime wins are not gimmick wins.

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

Problem is already solved.

True, OT wins are not gimmicks, and SOW don't count in the ROW tiebreaker (which I agree with). However this doesn't "solve the problem".

What is gimmicky is that regulation games are worth 2 pts and games that end in a ties are worth 3 pts. The owners like it b/c it tends to subsidize the weaker teams more thus making it look like the weaker teams are still "in it". What fans don't realize is if a team is out of the playoffs as the season is winding down, if this team starts jelling and playing better it's hard to make up ground quickly in the current system.

The suddenly hot team that was weaker early in the season can only earn 2 pts per game, while a fading team that's trying to hang on to a playoff spot can still earn 1 pt in an OTL or even 2 pts in an OTW. What if that hot team that wasn't good earlier in the season could pick up 3 pts for a reg win?!

 

[Bladerunner]

Btw, some posters seem to be confusing roster parity (which we generally have) with the current standings or game points system.

Two different topics.

 

[StreetHawk]

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

Stop rewarding teams for losing.

Pass on that. How often do you see 3 on 3 in regulation? I've seen it once in an Ottawa game.

That's a gimmick to get a goal in ot.

Regulation wins should be worth 3. Then the gimmick wins of fewer players and shootouts should be 2.

 

[Butch 19]

stick with 2 points its much easier to go with

um, yeah.... some games award 3 pts, and some 2.

 

[Jozay]

But as it's been stated before, the 3-2-1 system won't actually create that big of a separation in the standings.

So whats the point in making a change?

 

[JadedLeaf]

But as it's been stated before, the 3-2-1 system won't actually create that big of a separation in the standings.



The record book angle is also a cop out.

Well than why bother changing it in the first place? There is zero need need for a three point system. Teams also don't get a point for losing, they both get a point for being tied after regulation. The only bonus point is the one the winning team gets for winning in a shootout.

I get that people are saying the 3 on 3 OT is a gimmick because the rest of the game is played at 5 on 5 but I'm not convinced that makes it a "gimmick". For a sport where most of the fan base despises change, the NHL has changed a lot over the years to the point the whole game today would be considered a "gimmick" going by the standards of how the sport started. Things change, 3 on 3 OT is still a team game. There's less players on the ice but it's not a one on one skills comp like the shootout. More often than not that 5 minutes of OT is the most exciting 5 minute stretch in most games.

I'd much rather switch to a ten minute 3 on 3 or 4 on 4 with no shootout and ties than switch to a 3 point sysem.

 

[Classic Devil]

How different would last year's standings have been at the trade deadline?

 

[JadedLeaf]

How different would last year's standings have been at the trade deadline?

Not the standings at the deadline but these would have been what the standings looked like last season after the regular season.

 

[HanSolo]

Thread title pretends to be some new revelation that isn't brought up at least twice a year every year for the last decade.

 

[Pookie]

What's wrong with 2 for a win and 0 for a loss? No game ends in tie.

Why give a reward for playing a trap to get to OT to collect a point?

This would force teams to play for a win. No rewards for anything other than a win

 

[Sniper99]

The current format is just fine.

 

[SladeWilson23]

So whats the point in making a change?

Because simply put, regulation wins should be worth more than gimmick wins. There should be separate columns for regulation wins and OT/SO wins. Granted, they could still do that even under the current format, but since they're all worth 2 points they decide to keep it one column which leads to so much confusion and people misconstruing the current format.

 

[BruinLVGA]

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 long overdue. The whole planet has gone to this format in all team sports. The only exception is North America.

To those that say that it's better to keep the current format to keep teams packed in the standings, I say that a team that is seemingly far away in the standings can make up ground very quickly with the 3 points format.

Finally, it makes sense to award the same points total in all situations. As it is now, it's two points in regulation (2 for the winner, 0 for the loser) and three points in OT (2 for the winner, 1 for the OT loser). This is an incentive to get to OT at all costs because a team is guaranteed one point = makes teams play more defensive minded. The 3 points system makes team more eager to win in regulation = more offensive hockey.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Well than why bother changing it in the first place? There is zero need need for a three point system. Teams also don't get a point for losing, they both get a point for being tied after regulation. The only bonus point is the one the winning team gets for winning in a shootout.

Because there should be a separation between regulation wins and gimmick wins. There needs to be a difference between the 3 different kinds of wins. Biggest problem right now is that they're all lumped into the same column, and people think of them as the same when they're really not.

I also want to address the point about how the regulation tie point works. You're 100% right. No team gets a point for losing. It's a regulation tie point that BOTH teams get. People don't seem to realize that it is possible to have games where is a winner, but no loser.

But under the current format, we wouldn't have to worry about this. With the 3-2-1 system, we can actually get people to understand this much easier.

I'd present the record as follows if the format was 3-2-1.

RW - RL - RT (osw - osl)

RW: Regulation Win
RL: Regulation Loss
RT: Regulation Tie
osw: OT / SO Win
osl: OT / SO Loss

For example, the Devils record would look like this. 9-5-9 (5-4)

I get that people are saying the 3 on 3 OT is a gimmick because the rest of the game is played at 5 on 5 but I'm not convinced that makes it a "gimmick". For a sport where most of the fan base despises change, the NHL has changed a lot over the years to the point the whole game today would be considered a "gimmick" going by the standards of how the sport started. Things change, 3 on 3 OT is still a team game. There's less players on the ice but it's not a one on one skills comp like the shootout. More often than not that 5 minutes of OT is the most exciting 5 minute stretch in most games.

I'd much rather switch to a ten minute 3 on 3 or 4 on 4 with no shootout and ties than switch to a 3 point sysem.

Bottom line is you simply cannot punish teams for losing in the gimmick by giving them zero points. It's not feasible. The way the current format is only causes so many people to misconstrue what's going on with this current format.

 

[onlyalad]

3 points is not taking it far enough
5 points regulation win
4 points OT win
3 points shootout win
2 points shootout loss
1 point OT loss
0 points regulation loss

Reward/punish both teams and makes OT win more important than shootout

 

[BrockLobster]

3-2-1-0 format. 3 on 3 OT. Turn off the clock and play until someone scores. It would rarely if ever take longer than 10 min.

 

[Dustin]

Meh. 3-2-1 is such an old idea now. I've moved on from that years ago. I now subscribe to the 47 point game. Each individual hockey stereotype now being awarded points. I feel it's easily the fairest of any of the point systems and I'll fight anyone who wants to bring up the new 55 point system. That stuff is crap.

 

[pabst blue ribbon]

how about 10 minute 3v3 OT

no points for an OT loss

no points for a tie

This but 4v4 and ties result in a single point

 

[Chimpradamus]

You have to remember the NHL is an entertainment industry. That it's a sports league is like a third priority and the way how this industry happens to make its profit. Hence, they like artificial parity for entertainment purposes. The competitiveness isn't a priority and they will change this gimmick system when pigs fly.

Heck, look at the current playoff system. It's a joke, but it creates artificial rivalries, which in turn actually stops them from becoming rivalries.

The keywords here are artificial and entertainment.

 

[hirawl]

Created today from scratch with no historical or other background the point system should be like:
- regulation win - loss = 5 - 0
- overtime win - loss = 4 - 1
- shootout win - loss = 3 - 2

This would be good and fair for all involved. Makes way too much sense so it's obviously never going to happen.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

Play playoff style hockey all season. Two points for the win, zero points for a loss. Overtime is sudden death played exactly as regulation is played. To the extent that games will need to be decided due to fatigue, scheduling, or other factors, leave it to the coaching and players to decide how to strategize winning without playing on for hours...or let them play on for hours...if that is the desire of coaching and the players. That is what works in the playoffs...and it creates some of the best, most exciting, and marathon-like epic hockey games.

Sometimes the best solution has been sitting in front of us all along.

 

[ijuka]

Outside of the true 3 point system which to me is clearly the best system possible, I guess something else that could be worth considering would be removing loser points and only giving 1 point to the winner for a SO win instead of 2 points.


In any case, the current system is very nonsensical(some games awarding 3, some 2 points) and creates fake parity. I assume GMs like it for job security because they can just say "look we're only 4 points off a playoff spot" but that just has the consequence of making the trade deadline boring because everyone thinks they're "in it".

A true 3 point system would be far more indicative of how good the teams actually are and would make for more exciting and interesting trade deadlines.


Another thing is that a 3 point system would actually encourage teams to win in regulation. Right now, if we are in a tied game with 5 minutes left, both teams are very likely to just sit back, take no risks, and try to get the guaranteed point. Why wouldn't they? There's really no penalty in doing so. With a 3 point system, the teams would still have something to play for during regulation, as that's the only time they could get 3 points. That might lead into more exciting and offensive gameplay towards the end of regulation.



All in all, a 3 point system would in my opinion improve the game in various ways, in addition to being more fair and making more sense.