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

[EON]

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.

Right, but that weakness is addressed in the NHL, with continuous OT in the playoffs (as it should be).

Their point system is better and generally allows for a more distinct separation between the elite teams.

The current point system in the NHL is really just used to introduce artificial parity.

 

[Machinehead]

A win is a win.

I'm more open to different ideas about losses, but I think you're ruining the purpose of overtime if you start devaluing wins. End the game in a tie at that point. You might as well.

Regulation, OT, and shootout wins should all count the same.

For me, I would go.

Regulation - 2/0
Overtime - 2/0
3 on 3 - 2/1

I would start 4v4 and go 3v3 after a certain amount of minutes and play till there's a winner. Scrap the shootout. How long could 3v3 possibly last? I'm willing to give a point for 3v3 because it's meh as far as mirroring the actual product. Every win is the same.

 

[SabresSharks]

I'm in favor of these two improvements:

• award more points for a regulation win
• eliminate the shootout

Beyond that, I can live with the details of the solution.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

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.

Haha....that's funny. Oh...were you being serious ??

May not change the standings much as you look at them with the 3point/2 point games we currently have. But if a team is pushing to make the playoffs and has a chance at 3 points vs 2, they may just try a little harder.

Personally, I would prefer this to the joke that it is todday. But the best would be to get rid of the lousy 3on3 OT and go to 3 points for reg win, 1 pt for tie. Really put emphasis on winning

 

[Silver Tuna]

I'm allllllll for 3 point regulation wins. Please end this sit on our hands until OT strategy already.

Or any other system you can conjure up that rewards regulation wins.

 

[Whalers Fan]

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.

Yes, it is a loser point. The final score of an OT or SO game shows the winning team with one more goal/ point than the losing team. The standings heading even confirms it -- OTL = Overtime Loss.

No matter how you try to paint it, when the fans walk out of the arena after an OT/SO game they think their team has either won or lost the game. Rewarding the losing team is idiotic.

Lots of fans fail to realize when looking at the standings that OTL is really a loss. I had a co-worker who would insist a team had a winning record if they were, for example, 12-11-8. No, the team won 11 games and had lost 19 times -- that's not even close to a winning record.

 

[Korpse]

Yes, it is a loser point. The final score of an OT or SO game shows the winning team with one more goal/ point than the losing team. The standings heading even confirms it -- OTL = Overtime Loss.

No matter how you try to paint it, when the fans walk out of the arena after an OT/SO game they think their team has either won or lost the game. Rewarding the losing team is idiotic.

A shootout/3on3 is an idiotic way to decide a winner imo

 

[BruinLVGA]

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.

Yes, you can't have sudden death extra time that goes until one scores in soccer. In hockey they're already dead and gassed doing that in the playoffs and just imagine in soccer where they run all game. You would have casualties.

In soccer, if you go into extra time it's because it's either a direct elimination game or it's a game that means winning or losing a trophy. So there's no reason to assign points in extra time.
If it's not a direct elimination game or the game winner gets a trophy (example: the Champions League trophy), then if they're tied when the game is over, they don't go extra time.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Haha....that's funny. Oh...were you being serious ??

May not change the standings much as you look at them with the 3point/2 point games we currently have. But if a team is pushing to make the playoffs and has a chance at 3 points vs 2, they may just try a little harder.

Personally, I would prefer this to the joke that it is todday. But the best would be to get rid of the lousy 3on3 OT and go to 3 points for reg win, 1 pt for tie. Really put emphasis on winning

I agree that if a team NEEDS a regulation win late in the season that they're gonna go "balls to the wall". That goes without saying.

3 on 3 is extremely exciting, and imo shootouts are fun too. But they're gimmicks. Winning in regulation is what needs to be emphasized. Winning playing 5 on 5 is what needs to be emphasized. Teams shouldn't be able to abuse 3 on 3 or shootouts in order to make the playoffs.

 

[Butch 19]

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.

wow - how has baseball survived all these years?

well, 0.5 pts that is. I wouldn't want to go down to .25 increments. 0.5 increments would be perfect.

 

[Nizdizzle]

wow - how has baseball survived all these years?

well, 0.5 pts that is. I wouldn't want to go down to .25 increments. 0.5 increments would be perfect.

Baseball doesn't really have 0.5 points. Its just a placeholder for games in hand (unless it does, I don't watch a ton of Baseball).

I actually like baseballs points system, and would be on board with the NHL adopting it. Simple, proven, effective.

 

[Bupi]

Regulation, OT, and shootout wins should all count the same.

They do, that's the current system.

The problem is that losing isn't treated equally since making it to OT is rewarded with a point. Why shouldn't winning in the regulation also be rewarded with an extra point?

 

[Butch 19]

Last but not least, the whole planet outside NA switched to 3 points and it works perfectly.

Why should I (NA) care what the rest of the world does in any sport?!?

There might be some cool elephant polo league somewhere, so what? Does NA need to follow every bad idea in sports?

 

[PepsiMayWest]

I'm fond of this idea, but slightly modified.

3 points for a regulation win.
2 points for an overtime win.
1 point for a tie.
0 points for any loss.
5 minutes of 4 on 4 overtime.

Any game with a regulation victory results in 3 points being awarded. It stays in line with the NHL's supposed emphasis on non shootout wins to help determine tie breakers.
Any game with an overtime results in only 2 points being awarded. Again emphasizing the NHL's non shootout win emphasis. It also removes the mathematical oddity of current OT games being worth 50% MORE points than any regulation result (random????) and instead makes them worth 33% LESS.
You could also leave 3 on 3 and shootouts in if you weren't fond of bringing back ties too.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Why should I (NA) care what the rest of the world does in any sport?!?

There might be some cool elephant polo league somewhere, so what? Does NA need to follow every bad idea in sports?

Because smart people take advantage of ideas that are tested and then found to be working perfectly. What is better than having someone road test something else and then you can have the advantage without the risks involved in R&D, for free?

If you had to live your life with only things that were invented & tested in your neighborhood, you probably would be running around half naked, chasing rodents with rocks to get yourself a "yummy" dinner. Food for thought...

 

[Machinehead]

They do, that's the current system.

The problem is that losing isn't treated equally since making it to OT is rewarded with a point. Why shouldn't winning in the regulation also be rewarded with an extra point?

Because then there's no point to playing overtime.

I'm not going to sit in the arena to see if my team gets 2 points when they could have gotten 3.

 

[Braunbaer]

I'd do the following:

3 points for a win after 60 minutes.
2 points for a win in a 10 minute long 4on4-OT
1 point each if noone scores in OT.
0 reasons for "casuals" to show up in hope of a shoot-out.

 

[KingsFan7824]

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 teams play every day, so if they go a few extra innings, who cares. Football is once a week. Basketball, how often do games go to OT? Again, all of those leagues have different values to various ways of scoring. It's why games hardly even get to OT in those sports.

The 76-77 Canadiens, the greatest team of all time, had more ties than losses. That was back when men were men, and years before Bettman ruined the sport. The year Gretzky had 92 goals, the Oilers had 15 ties. The first year with a 5 minute OT at 5v5, Gretzky had 87 goals, and the Oilers still ended up tied 5 times.

If the NHL went back to 5v5 OT for 5 minutes, then no game would be worth 3 points again. Baseball, football, and basketball don't take players off the playing surface in their OT's.

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

Hockey should have one or the other.

You can score 4 runs on one hit in baseball. You have 2 or 3 point shots in basketball. You can get 3 or 6 point plays in football. In hockey, you get 1 goal per shot, no matter where you shoot it from, or how you get it. Change that, and you can get rid of the point system in the standings. Make a PP goal worth 1.5 goals or whatever.

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.

You have the point before you start OT. The only way to lose that point is by pulling your goalie and getting scored on. You get 0 points for the actual act of losing in overtime. You have the point from being tied at the end of normal play, the way it's always been.

The incentive to get to OT if regulation wins were worth 3 points would be no less than it currently is. And the teams that win in regulation today do get rewarded. The other team they're playing doesn't get any points, and they don't have to worry about what any other team does. If you leave your fate to 3v3, or a SO, you take your chances.

 

[Butch 19]

Because smart people take advantage of ideas that are tested and then found to be working perfectly. What is better than having someone road test something else and then you can have the advantage without the risks involved in R&D, for free?

If you had to live your life with only things that were invented & tested in your neighborhood, you probably would be running around half naked, chasing rodents with rocks to get yourself a "yummy" dinner. Food for thought...

You say working perfectly, I say soccer sucks and the 3 pt game is the least of their problems.

Now what?

 

[BruinLVGA]

You say working perfectly, I say soccer sucks and the 3 pt game is the least of their problems.

Now what?

I say that you don't know what you are talking about. That's because EVERY TEAM SPORT (including hockey) is on the 3 points system outside of NA and has been as such for roughly the last quarter of a century. And yes, it's working A-OK. It's just you guys that need to get up to speed. Coffee anyone? Wakey wakey.

Now what?

 

[Freaky Styley]

Been preaching this for years now. Although the system shouldn't reward losing in any respect, and should still make SO wins worth less than any other win.

3 points regulation win
2 points OT win
1 point SO win
0 points for loss

 

[Pookie]

Right, but that weakness is addressed in the NHL, with continuous OT in the playoffs (as it should be).

Their point system is better and generally allows for a more distinct separation between the elite teams.

The current point system in the NHL is really just used to introduce artificial parity.

My position comes from a belief that the current point system contributes to a boring, defence first mentality. Like you said with artificial parity, the goal becomes not losing the single point.

In a 2 or 0 win lose system, there is no reward for playing for the tie.

In a 3 or 1 or 0 system you have an improvement in that a win gets you 2 extra points but you still have the mentality of hanging on for OT to get at least 1. If you lose in regulation you get nothing so you play conservative still to not lose the point.

 

[Canada4Gold]

Historical records? Really? Like how Martin Brodeur was able to pile up a number of extra wins because instead of ties in a certain batch of games, every game has a winner now? Or how the goalies in the 80s got an extra shot at wins when overtime was introduced in the regular season?

Have to go to 3 point games for the simple fact there needs to be incentive to go for the win in regulation. Otherwise coaches just have their team clam up. It's why soccer went to that system. Teams played for draws. So make wins more valuable.

It's not my excuse but I'm sure it's an excuse the NHL will use. But like I said it's solved by scaling the points down to 2, 4/3, 2/3, and 0, which would work exactly the same as a 3,2,1,0 system. Or use 2,1.5,0.5,0 because most people are too math illiterate to want to use fractions or unending decimals for standings. But I assume they wouldn't want to do halves either for that matter.

 

[PunkRockLocke]

I like the idea of:

2pts for win
0 pts for everything else

Make 3 on 3 OT 10 mins long, then go to a shootout.

It would basically become a win/loss record standings setup, where points don't matter

 

[93LEAFS]

I like the idea of:

2pts for win
0 pts for everything else

Make 3 on 3 OT 10 mins long, then go to a shootout.

It would basically become a win/loss record standings setup, where points don't matter

If you are going to resort to gimmicks to break the tie after 60 minutes, I think loser points have to exist. How about we just end the game after 60 minutes, like the most popular sport in the world does in league play (except its 90, not 60).