Should share of points not be given out until after OT?

[FirewagonChange]

If one point weren't given out to teams after a tied game in regulation and instead only given out after OT if it were still a tied game (SO deciding final point), would this be a better idea for ending games before the shootout?

This may make teams play for the win instead of buckling down when tied within the last 10 minutes of the 3rd period because they're no longer guaranteed that point after regulation time is up.

Pros

Teams playing for win when tied late in regulation

Makes OT more exciting with two full points on the line

Potentially end more games before SO which equals more goals and games naturally ending in a true hockey manner


Cons
4 on 4 deciding 2 points

Potentially makes the standings less competitive

Click to read more...

 

[robsenz]

Makes more sense this way, or just rid of the SO all together and play until someone scores 4-4.

 

[MoreOrr]

If one point weren't given out to teams after a tied game in regulation and instead only given out after OT if it were still a tied game (SO deciding final point), would this be a better idea for ending games before the shootout?

This may make teams play for the win instead of buckling down when tied within the last 10 minutes of the 3rd period because they're no longer guaranteed that point after regulation time is up.

Pros

Teams playing for win when tied late in regulation

Makes OT more exciting with two full points on the line

Potentially end more games before SO which equals more goals and games naturally ending in a true hockey manner


Cons
4 on 4 deciding 2 points

Potentially makes the standings less competitive

Think about it!!! Really!

If the Tie Point isn't awarded until after OT, then the OT would be ABSOLUTELY USELESS... Sorry for the capital letters, but this point has been made countless times before. And it's why the original OT, way back when, was deemed as a waste of time until finally the League decided to award the Tie point again. Teams would play for the SO where they know that win or lose, they get at least 1 pt.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Makes more sense this way, or just rid of the SO all together and play until someone scores 4-4.

Yeah cause that's totally feasible

 

[Rangers ftw]

3 points for win in regulation, 1 for draw and 2 for overtime//shootout win.

 

[Sarcastic]

Literally stalemating and making the game worse.

 

[ARoggy94]

Yeah cause that's totally feasible

It is

 

[Roomtemperature]

It is

No its not

 

[Jeti]

Your solution to teams playing boring to wait for OT is to change it so they'll also play boring to wait for the shootout?

You clearly haven't thought this through.

 

[FirewagonChange]

Your solution to teams playing boring to wait for OT is to change it so they'll also play boring to wait for the shootout?

You clearly haven't thought this through.

Its 4 on 4 in ot, much harder to play defensive style hockey. Obviously you haven't thought it through

 

[DL44]

This would be a great idea, if you wished to increase the number of shootouts across the league.

 

[Anglesmith]

OT is currently the most exciting brand of hockey that we see, exactly because teams know they've already got a point to fall back on and they can go balls to the wall for the bonus point.

This suggestion would simply result in teams playing OT the exact same way they play the last few minutes of a regulation when the game is tied. They would play not to lose, and we'd see a huge increase in the number of games going to a shootout.

 

[Xamar*]

3 points for win in regulation, 1 for draw and 2 for overtime//shootout win.

/Thread

 

[FirewagonChange]

OT is currently the most exciting brand of hockey that we see, exactly because teams know they've already got a point to fall back on and they can go balls to the wall for the bonus point.

This suggestion would simply result in teams playing OT the exact same way they play the last few minutes of a regulation when the game is tied. They would play not to lose, and we'd see a huge increase in the number of games going to a shootout.

It's definitely fair to think it could increase shootouts, but I think teams that do go balls in OT is because the last thing they want is a shootout because it's such a crap shoot. Plus 4 on 4 makes it extremely hard to play a defensive style because the neutral zone is so open...which makes the game look faster and more balls to the wall. You're kind of forced to play offensively in OT, hence the reason it is 4 on 4 so it improves chances of game ending.
.

 

[Cold Medicine]

OT is currently the most exciting brand of hockey that we see, exactly because teams know they've already got a point to fall back on and they can go balls to the wall for the bonus point.

Well, if a team wanted to go "balls to the wall" by pulling their goalie in overtime (not including delayed calls), they would risk having to forfeit the automatic point if their opponent scored on the empty net.

 

[FirewagonChange]

3 points for win in regulation, 1 for draw and 2 for overtime//shootout win.

Am I reading this right..where does a draw come into play if their is OT and SO?

 

[Individual 1]

Am I reading this right..where does a draw come into play if their is OT and SO?

Draw= OTL or shootout loss

 

[Machinehead]

There's no reason to change the points in OT. Shootout I understand, but an OT win/loss is no different than a regular win/loss.

People refer to it as the "loser point" because teams now get credit for losing in overtime, which they didn't for about 85 years.

 

[leafsfuture]

10 minute overtimes with 4 on 4.

Guaranteed number of shootout games is at least halved.

 

[Sojourn]

It is

It really isn't. Not with back-to-back games, and not with how tightly packed the season can become.

 

[Paranoid Android]

There's no reason to change the points in OT. Shootout I understand, but an OT win/loss is no different than a regular win/loss.

People refer to it as the "loser point" because teams now get credit for losing in overtime, which they didn't for about 85 years.

It's 4v4, so yes it is different than regulation. Back when OT was 5v5, it made sense to not award points because it was just an extension of regulation.

It's still hockey though, so I see your point. But I like the excitement that it brings. Taking away the points earned after regulation would make OT worthless and boring.

 

[flyingkiwi]

I'm for the three point system. 3-0 points for Reg/OT win, 2-1for SO. Still getting rewarded for winning, but due to the often flukey nature of the SO, it's not worth as much and the team that draws the short end of the stick still gets a point.

I haven't given any changes to how OT is played any real thought, but if it is to be awarded the same number of points as regulation, it should probably stay the same.

 

[Butch 19]

There's no reason to change the points in OT. Shootout I understand, but an OT win/loss is no different than a regular win/loss.

People refer to it as the "loser point" because teams now get credit for losing in overtime, which they didn't for about 85 years.

No, they don't. (You'd think that [hockey] "people" would know that)

 

[robsenz]

Yeah cause that's totally feasible

Not practical with scheduling like someone here said...but 4-4 is arguably the most exciting hockey to watch because the players get way more space and opportunity to score goals. I would imagine it rare to not score within a 10 minute period, especially if they got rid of the loser point. The system now isn't really great right now. I'd honestly rather have ties than a SO.