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

[swissexpert]

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

But it doesn't!! Why does no one get this?
You can't actually create more space between you and your opponents than now, it just looks like it..
You could give 20 points for a W, 10 for OTL, the league won't be decided earlier in the year. A 60 point gap might look big but would be possible to catch up in a week or two.

Why not give 0.2 points per win if NHL fans are so easily manipulated? The playoff race would be closer than ever...

It's actually about 3 things and I fully agree with OP's system:
-Teams want to win a tied game rather than make it to OT.
-Every game is worth 3 points, you decide your own fate rather than having to hope for regulation wins around the division.
-a loss in OT is still worth more than a regular loss but not half a win as today. Losing would become less rewarded.

 

[stampedingviking]

The current format is just fine.

No it's not, you shouldn't have some games worth 2 points and some 3, it's stupid.

 

[Gnashville]

3 on 3 is a complete gimmick. It almost never happens in a real game. It’s also a skill competition same as a shootout. The team elements are removed in 3 on 3 since passing is discouraged

 

[agent082]

If it has to be 2 point win

regular win = 2 pts
ot or so win = 1,5 pts
ot or so loss = 0,5 pts
loss = 0 pts

or

regular win = 2 pts
ot or so win = 1,25 pts
ot or so loss 0,75 pts
loss = 0 pts

 

[Korpse]

How about 1 point for a win and no points for a loss. Get rid of this loser point stuff.

Can we talk about the loser point for a second. Everyone mentions how lucky these teams are to get the point in a game that they "lost". Meanwhile their opponent gets two points for being better in a shootout or 3vs3. Has anyone ever compared two teams and thought "team A and team B are close but Team A is better in the shootout and 3vs3, so i think they are better"? How does winning in a shootout or OT legitimize the result of a game?

Get rid of the extra point after regulation because really thats whats happened here. People complained about ties, so the NHL added two gimmicks after the hockey game and an extra point to appease the people.

 

[EON]

Use the format that European football uses. 3 points for a win, 1 point each for a draw, 0 for a loss. Get rid of the shootout.

 

[Frosty415]

This thread again?

Just make it W-L

2 points for a win, 0 for a loss

 

[Nizdizzle]

I'm in favour of any of these points systems:
- W 3pts / OTW 2pts / OTL 1pt / L 0pts
- W 2pts / OTW and OTL 1pt / L 0pts (use OTW as a tiebreaker category only)
- W 1pt / L 0pts

Every game worth the same amount of points, regardless of OT, and each system rewards teams for winning in regulation.

This thread again?

Just make it W-L

2 points for a win, 0 for a loss

In this setup (simple W/L), what is the point of having a win worth 2 points, rather than just 1?

 

[Nizdizzle]

If it has to be 2 point win

regular win = 2 pts
ot or so win = 1,5 pts
ot or so loss = 0,5 pts
loss = 0 pts

or

regular win = 2 pts
ot or so win = 1,25 pts
ot or so loss 0,75 pts
loss = 0 pts

I can't think of few things worse than a point system that can be broken down to .25's. If you need fractions for your point system, it isn't a good system.

 

[Kamiccolo]

At this point I just assume people are intentionally missing the point. You can say you are a fan of 3-2-1, but to call it a loser point IMO just shows a lack of understanding or a refusal to.

Old time hockey = tied after regulation each team gets 1 point.

When OT was introduced, each team got a point as they usually would for the tie, and then extra time is played for the 2nd point that the winner normally gets.

There is no loser point, if anything it should be called the winner point as only the winner gets an extra point.

 

[Nizdizzle]

At this point I just assume people are intentionally missing the point. You can say you are a fan of 3-2-1, but to call it a loser point IMO just shows a lack of understanding or a refusal to.

Old time hockey = tied after regulation each team gets 1 point.

When OT was introduced, each team got a point as they usually would for the tie, and then extra time is played for the 2nd point that the winner normally gets.

There is no loser point, if anything it should be called the winner point as only the winner gets an extra point.

Regardless of if it is a loser point or a winner point, it shouldn't exist. All games should be worth the same amount of points. The pot shouldn't get bigger because both teams decide to play safe for the last 20 minutes.

 

[Cor]

Better idea. Get rid of the points system all together. Go to just Wins and Losses. Sorted by winning %.

Tiebreakers:
1. Goal Differential
2. Goals For
3. Head to Head
4. Record Against Division
5. Coin Flip


Ideally we go to continuous 3v3, but the shootout technically can remain

 

[Pookie]

Because the shootout is a terrible way to decide the outcome of a hockey game.

Agreed completely.

Who said it had to be decided with a shootout?

I just said play till you have a winner. Whether that's 5 v 5 or 4 v 4 or 3 v 3 just play.

Next goal wins.

 

[Pookie]

Come to accept? It's always been normal. When haven't there been ties in hockey?
.

When? In the playoffs.

 

[Pookie]

In soccer, a sport that is the biggest in the world by far, ties are perfectly OK and still happening.

They have their weakness too though with big games being decided by PKs.

They also have a 3 and 1 point system to reward winning. You don't get a single point for getting into Extra Time tied.

 

[stranger]

The current point systems is awful. When two teams are playing each other (that are competing with my team for playoff spot), I'm mostly rooting for NO TIE. It's insane that some games give out 2 points, and some 3 points.

 

[inthewings]

Agreed completely.

Who said it had to be decided with a shootout?

I just said play till you have a winner. Whether that's 5 v 5 or 4 v 4 or 3 v 3 just play.

Next goal wins.

I'm on board. Would have to be 3v3 probably, but that's still miles better than the current system.

 

[Bizz]

just bring back ties and be done with it.

 

[Bizz]

How about 1 point for a win and no points for a loss. Get rid of this loser point stuff.

because the shootout is a gimmick and should be abolished forever. Hockey is a team sport, winners should not be determined by some lame one-on-one skills competition. one team gaining 2 points and the other 0 for a such a gimmick is absurd.

 

[Whalers Fan]

I have never liked the current system. Teams should not be rewarded for losing a game. If you are going to play overtime and a shootout to determine a winner, there should be a loser, too. Make it simple -- 2 points for any win, and you get nothing for losing. If you don't like awarding two points for a gimmick win via a shootout, then let the game end in a tie after 3 on 3 overtime and award each team one point. There is nothing wrong with a regular season tie -- the NFL still has them occasionally.

Baseball, football and basketball do not reward teams who lose in overtime. Why should hockey? This is professional sports, not grade school where kids get participation trophies and "everyone's a winner".

Can you tell how much I dislike the "loser point"?

 

[Bizz]

I have never liked the current system. Teams should not be rewarded for losing a game. If you are going to play overtime and a shootout to determine a winner, there should be a loser, too. Make it simple -- 2 points for any win, and you get nothing for losing. If you don't like awarding two points for a gimmick win via a shootout, then let the game end in a tie after 3 on 3 overtime and award each team one point. There is nothing wrong with a regular season tie -- the NFL still has them occasionally.

Baseball, football and basketball do not reward teams who lose in overtime. Why should hockey? This is professional sports, not grade school where kids get participation trophies and "everyone's a winner".

Can you tell how much I dislike the "loser point"?

Baseball keeps going until a winner is determined. So does Basketball. Football has ties.

Hockey should have one or the other.

 

[GOilers88]

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.

You shouldnt receive any points simply for making it to OT.its the single dumbest thing that has ever been implemented in hockey. It's like the loser point in the CFL for missing a field goal.

 

[Redder Winger]

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.

Bingo. Even though it waters down the entertainment value of the 60-minute game, this system keeps more teams in the playoff hunt in February and March, which keeps turnstiles spinning at a passable rate in shit hockey markets.

I think it's shortsighted, but NHL owners are what they are.

 

[golfortennis]

At this point I just assume people are intentionally missing the point. You can say you are a fan of 3-2-1, but to call it a loser point IMO just shows a lack of understanding or a refusal to.

Old time hockey = tied after regulation each team gets 1 point.

When OT was introduced, each team got a point as they usually would for the tie, and then extra time is played for the 2nd point that the winner normally gets.

There is no loser point, if anything it should be called the winner point as only the winner gets an extra point.

It is a loser point, because you get it if you go to OT, then lose.

The problem is that some games can be worth 3 points, and some worth 2. You can't have it like that.

Not to mention the huge incentive for a team to just get to OT, which leads to conservative play. The complaint was that OT was boring as teams "played to protect the point", hence the loser point. Make every game worth 3 points. Simple. This way the teams that can't win in regulation might get something, but those that can, get rewarded.

 

[golfortennis]

Bingo. Even though it waters down the entertainment value of the 60-minute game, this system keeps more teams in the playoff hunt in February and March, which keeps turnstiles spinning at a passable rate in **** hockey markets.

I think it's shortsighted, but NHL owners are what they are.

Is there a winning post for the day award? Cause this is my nominee.