The mirage of the loser point, a false dichotomy

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
This is a thing. Especially, in American culture, people like to see a winner. Ties are more of European thing, because that has been normal in soccer, our biggest sports in here.

That 3-2-1-0 system sill keeps the excitement. 3 point win is a reward of clear 60min win, like bigger win than 2-point win. That's important for coaches, that they know their 5-on-5 hockey is working. Because regular season is preparing for playoff hockey, and there, only 5-on-5 hockey matters. Historical records can be adjusted, internet is full of guys who do these, like The Athletic writers. There was already that comparison for Tampa -19 record season vs. Red Wings -96 season vs. Montreal's -77 season.

But for fan excitement, overtimes are fine. It's obvious. There you can fight for that extra point, if every game would distribute 3 points.

Biggest flaw is to have 2-point games and 3-point games happening under same League. It's moronic. Every year this will cost a playoff spot for some team, who was able to win more on regular time, but some lesser team collected more points from overtime with inflated points.

There is also the standings thing, and how everybody would look close thing, but it's still moronic.

I would love it if the NHL adopted a 3-2-1 point format, makes so much more sense to me from a "integrity of the game" standpoint. I think they do it how its currently set up because they want teams close in the standings, I dont like it, but I understand it.
 

Dead Thing

Registered User
Jun 24, 2018
91
27
This really is very straight forward-

Winner in regulation gets 3 pts. Loser gets 0 pts.
Winner in O.T. gets 2 pts. Loser gets 0 pts.
Winner in S.O. gets 1 pt. Loser gets 0 pts.

I have never understood the rationale that a team that FAILS to win in regulation, overtime or the shootout should, in any way shape or form, benefit in the standings.

Standings are based on winning percentage.

If you lose, you snooze.
 

Dead Thing

Registered User
Jun 24, 2018
91
27
This really is very straight forward-

Winner in regulation gets 3 pts. Loser gets 0 pts.
Winner in O.T. gets 2 pts. Loser gets 0 pts.
Winner in S.O. gets 1 pt. Loser gets 0 pts.

I have never understood the rationale that a team that FAILS to win in regulation, overtime or the shootout should, in any way shape or form, benefit in the standings.

Standings are based on winning percentage.

If you lose, you snooze.

This system will also reduce the number of OT games(as well as SO games) because teams will want to go for the win in regulation as this will get you the most traction in the standings.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
That's not true. There's tons of kids playing soccer now. When I was in high school 20 years ago, we could barely field a complete team. The sport is growing fast among youths. Meaning, when those youths grow up and the present day good ole boys become old men, soccer will become more popular among middle aged people. For the last 10 years or so, they televise international games from the English league, German league, etc. Something that 15 or 20 years ago, you wouldn't find on sports channels in the U.S.

So your statement would be true if this was 2000. It's not however. The amount of kids playing the sport and the TV coverage of foreign leagues has grown exponentially.

Our conversation was rooted in fan viewership as the premise was why the NHL does what they do and I made the point that ties would hurt them financially. Soccer enrollment may be up, and sure it may air on ESPN 4 or other smaller networks, but Soccer is simply not a draw in North America. Look at the ratings and compare it to any of the other big 4 sports, look at the gates of a soccer game and compare that to any of the big 4. If you don't agree, no hard feelings, I say this with all due respect (I'm really not saying this sarcastically) but I dont care enough about soccer to debate it.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,078
Tampere, Finland
This really is very straight forward-

Winner in regulation gets 3 pts. Loser gets 0 pts.
Winner in O.T. gets 2 pts. Loser gets 0 pts.
Winner in S.O. gets 1 pt. Loser gets 0 pts.

I have never understood the rationale that a team that FAILS to win in regulation, overtime or the shootout should, in any way shape or form, benefit in the standings.

Standings are based on winning percentage.

If you lose, you snooze.

Yeah, let's kick the loser on ground! They are so weak, it's time to beat their azzes. LOZERR !

This is your thinking and morale level?

Somebody has lost something in the process.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,089
5,064
Parts Unknown
Our conversation was rooted in fan viewership as the premise was why the NHL does what they do and I made the point that ties would hurt them financially. Soccer enrollment may be up, and sure it may air on ESPN 4 or other smaller networks, but Soccer is simply not a draw in North America. Look at the ratings and compare it to any of the other big 4 sports, look at the gates of a soccer game and compare that to any of the big 4. If you don't agree, no hard feelings, I say this with all due respect (I'm really not saying this sarcastically) but I dont care enough about soccer to debate it.
European league games are on FS1, FS2, and NBCSN (same as NHL). So not third rate sports channels. I wasn't talking about the MLS, but the sport in general. The MLS will always be behind European leagues, no matter how many teams they expand to. I'm assuming you're talking about MLS gate and not the English Premier league gate.

No, the TV viewership of European soccer games in the U.S. is not as high as the NFL or NBA. Guess what? The viewership for the NHL is way below those sports as well. I live in the Midwest where many people know nothing about hockey, have never seen a game, never played it themselves, can't name two NHL players, etc.

Have NHL ratings increased since the shootout and 3 on 3 was implemented? If so, does anybody besides Gary Bettman actually believe there's a correlation between shootouts and ratings? Is getting rid of ties going to overtake NBA ratings? I think we can all agree the NHL will never sniff NFL ratings in America.
 
Last edited:

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,089
5,064
Parts Unknown
This really is very straight forward-

Winner in regulation gets 3 pts. Loser gets 0 pts.
Winner in O.T. gets 2 pts. Loser gets 0 pts.
Winner in S.O. gets 1 pt. Loser gets 0 pts.

I have never understood the rationale that a team that FAILS to win in regulation, overtime or the shootout should, in any way shape or form, benefit in the standings.

Standings are based on winning percentage.

If you lose, you snooze.
The rationale is that shootouts are a gimmick done just so there's a winner. Like deciding a baseball game in extra innings via a home run derby between each team's top two sluggers.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
Have NHL ratings increased since the shootout and 3 on 3 was implemented? If so, does anybody besides Gary Bettman actually believe there's a correlation between shootouts and ratings? Is getting rid of ties going to overtake NBA ratings?

When they first removed ties, I remember reading they were mainly catering to the fans that actually went to the games. The idea of attending a game and having it end in a tie was an anticlimactic experience.

And at first, I think fans really took well to the shootout. Gimmicky as it was, it's undeniable being there in person for a shootout was more exciting than a brief 5 on 5 that usually ended up in a tie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Henkka and kliq

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
European league games are on FS1, FS2, and NBCSN (same as NHL). So not third rate sports channels. I wasn't talking about the MLS, but the sport in general. The MLS will always be behind European leagues, no matter how many teams they expand to. I'm assuming you're talking about MLS gate and not the English Premier league gate.

No, the TV viewership of European soccer games in the U.S. is not as high as the NFL or NBA. Guess what? The viewership for the NHL is way below those sports as well in the U.S. I live in the Midwest where many people know nothing about hockey, have never seen a game, never played it themselves, etc.

Have NHL ratings increased since the shootout and 3 on 3 was implemented? If so, does anybody besides Gary Bettman actually believe there's a correlation between shootouts and ratings? Is getting rid of ties going to overtake NBA ratings? I think we can all agree the NHL will never sniff NFL ratings in America.

Again, you can talk about soccer all you want but its just not that popular in North America. Of course I'm talking about the MLS gate, this conversation is specifically about North America. There is no denying the success of soccer in Europe.

I also find it funny how you interpret me saying "North America" as being "the US". When I talk about North America I am referring to both the US and Canada. I agree the NHL is not that popular in certain area's of the US, but ironically that just reinforces my point that you seem so dead set to prove wrong, given the lack of success of course they are going to cater to the US audience and implement rules that will make more money. Do I like it, No. But I get it.

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
When they first removed ties, I remember reading they were mainly catering to the fans that actually went to the games. The idea of attending a game and having it end in a tie was an anticlimactic experience.

And at first, I think fans really took well to the shootout. Gimmicky as it was, it's undeniable being there in person for a shootout was more exciting than a brief 5 on 5 that usually ended up in a tie.

Exactly, 100% agree with this.
 

Henkka

Registered User
Jan 31, 2004
31,077
12,078
Tampere, Finland
Yeah, and still using that 2-point win is as stupid as usin inches and Lbs.

Sorry Americans, but it is. The Metric system has existed there for 230 years, and still you haven't taken it in use. It was invented 24 year after the United States got independence, and still you guys are going with inches, feets and yards, c'mon. :)

But I'm ready to wait for another what, 200 years ?

Maybe you can change.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,089
5,064
Parts Unknown
Again, you can talk about soccer all you want but its just not that popular in North America. Of course I'm talking about the MLS gate, this conversation is specifically about North America. There is no denying the success of soccer in Europe.

I also find it funny how you interpret me saying "North America" as being "the US". When I talk about North America I am referring to both the US and Canada. I agree the NHL is not that popular in certain area's of the US, but ironically that just reinforces my point that you seem so dead set to prove wrong, given the lack of success of course they are going to cater to the US audience and implement rules that will make more money. Do I like it, No. But I get it.

I'm not even going to address your hyperbole.
Please do because there was no hyperbole.

I'm only talking about the U.S. because Canadians aren't going to stop watching hockey based on overtime rules in the regular season. Hockey will always be #1 in Canada. The NHL isn't trying to cater to Canada. They have that market covered.

As for Americans, have you ever met a single casual fan who started following more hockey because of shootouts? Also, have you ever met an American who stopped watching hockey because they were frustrated at seeing ties in the regular season? This question is not just directed at you, but any posters. I can tell you I've never met either kind of person. Most casual fans don't even know what rules the NHL has for settling ties in the regular season. You can't be serious in believing that shootouts somehow bring more money or ratings to the NHL. The NHL is far below the other NA leagues in ratings and revenue. They have a hill to climb and shootouts haven't closed that gap from what I see. The league has bigger issues to solve to become more mainstream.
 
Last edited:

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,089
5,064
Parts Unknown
When they first removed ties, I remember reading they were mainly catering to the fans that actually went to the games. The idea of attending a game and having it end in a tie was an anticlimactic experience.

And at first, I think fans really took well to the shootout. Gimmicky as it was, it's undeniable being there in person for a shootout was more exciting than a brief 5 on 5 that usually ended up in a tie.
It's more fun to watch than a regular season tie, but once again, do you think the league has either gained or lost fans because of its OT regular season rules over the years? Is the shootout putting money into the pockets of players, execs, and the league? Would bringing back ties lose fans for the NHL?
 
Last edited:

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
It's fun to watch, but once again, do you think the league has either gained or lost fans because of its OT regular season rules over the years? Is the shootout putting money into the pockets of players, execs, and the league?

There's no way to quantify that, outside of extensive polling. Perhaps the league has already done this. I'd be surprised if they didn't. In terms of money, league revenue has, on the whole, been going up. So something is working.

What I can say is that fans, not just the casuals but the ones who paid to bring their families to NHL games, enjoyed having a winner and loser when they left the rink. Now that the novelty of shootouts have worn off and they've tweaked the format multiple times, I have no idea if that's still true. Anyone suggesting to know the answer is guessing.

My guess is that I doubt it moves the needle much one way or the other. And that many fans still do like shootouts, even if teams hate them.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
Better hockey will sell the game better than close standings.
The NHL choosing parity over a better product shows, once again, how little the owners and leadership understand what makes this game so great.

If I was a fan in Florida or Arizona all these years, with all those boring low-event coaches trying to keep games close - I can't say I'd be a big fan of hockey.
Hockey is best when the systems get broken and players attack, end to end. There's nothing like it.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Please do because there was no hyperbole.

I'm only talking about the U.S. because Canadians aren't going to stop watching hockey based on overtime rules in the regular season. Hockey will always be #1 in Canada. The NHL isn't trying to cater to Canada. They have that market covered.

As for Americans, have you ever met a single casual fan who started following more hockey because of shootouts? Also, have you ever met an American who stopped watching hockey because they were frustrated at seeing ties in the regular season? This question is not just directed at you, but any posters. I can tell you I've never met either kind of person. Most casual fans don't even know what rules the NHL has for settling ties in the regular season. You can't be serious in believing that shootouts somehow bring more money or ratings to the NHL. The NHL is far below the other NA leagues in ratings and revenue. They have a hill to climb and shootouts haven't closed that gap from what I see. The league has bigger issues to solve to become more mainstream.

Ok, you're going to try to claim there was no hyperbole, fine Ill treat your comments as literal truth. So you truly think that what I am saying is that by the NHL getting rid of ties, I believe they are going to beat the NBA in ratings? If this isn't simply a hyperbolic statement, then its an odd statement to make since the NHL got rid of ties a long time ago. This is why I didnt want to address a hyperbolic statement, I sound silly even responding to it since its hyperbole.

As for your question, I never said fans started watching because of shootouts, however I do know many fans who started going to see more games because of them. This has been a radio topic discussed many times, casual fans who just want to go to the game with their families like the idea of seeing a winner. I also never said anyone stopped watching hockey because of ties, but I do know people who felt like watching a game end in a tie was a waste of their money. Again, this is a topic that has been discussed on the radio many many times. Of course its not "all" fans, but its 100% some.

I believe that NHL tries to be "fan friendly" and in their minds they believe that shootouts is. Again, I'm not saying that I would do it, I'm just saying that I get it. Don't shoot the messenger.
 

The Zetterberg Era

Ball Hockey Sucks
Nov 8, 2011
40,957
11,577
Ft. Myers, FL
There's no way to quantify that, outside of extensive polling. Perhaps the league has already done this. I'd be surprised if they didn't. In terms of money, league revenue has, on the whole, been going up. So something is working.

What I can say is that fans, not just the casuals but the ones who paid to bring their families to NHL games, enjoyed having a winner and loser when they left the rink. Now that the novelty of shootouts have worn off and they've tweaked the format multiple times, I have no idea if that's still true. Anyone suggesting to know the answer is guessing.

My guess is that I doubt it moves the needle much one way or the other. And that many fans still do like shootouts, even if teams hate them.

I love them having an end result. What I want is a three point system.

But walking out of the rink having a winner, is preferable to me and I have never been in arena where everyone isn't standing and into it while it is happening. Funny enough I find some of the most die-hard I hate the shootout guys to be the fighting never makes people unhappy in the building crowd, while ignoring that same dynamic in the shootout.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kliq and Bench

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
Funny enough I find some of the most die-hard I hate the shootout guys to be the fighting never makes people unhappy in the building crowd while ignoring that same dynamic in the shootout.

Man, this is a straight up true fact.

And since we're weighing in, I also support the shootout. It has nothing to do with "real" hockey, but ties suck and they are the only time we ever get to see them.



If you don't go "oh sweet baby riblets" to at least one of the dirty tricks above, you might want to check your pulse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Zetterberg Era

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,089
5,064
Parts Unknown
I love them having an end result. What I want is a three point system.

But walking out of the rink having a winner, is preferable to me and I have never been in arena where everyone isn't standing and into it while it is happening. Funny enough I find some of the most die-hard I hate the shootout guys to be the fighting never makes people unhappy in the building crowd, while ignoring that same dynamic in the shootout.
There pretty much is no fighting anymore sadly.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,089
5,064
Parts Unknown
Man, this is a straight up true fact.

And since we're weighing in, I also support the shootout. It has nothing to do with "real" hockey, but ties suck and they are the only time we ever get to see them.



If you don't go "oh sweet baby riblets" to at least one of the dirty tricks above, you might want to check your pulse.

Thanks for admitting that much at least. You're right, but it's strange you still want shootouts despite that knowledge. Why decide the standings with a gimmick that isn't real hockey?
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
Thanks for admitting that much at least. You're right, but it's strange you still want shootouts despite that knowledge. Why decide the standings with a gimmick that isn't real hockey?

Because this is still ultimately an entertainment product.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
Because this is still ultimately an entertainment product.

Yup, its a business. There is an element of integrity (ie. no shootouts in the playoffs), but ultimately its about maximizing profits.
 

GMR

Registered User
Jul 27, 2013
6,089
5,064
Parts Unknown
Because this is still ultimately an entertainment product.
Then we're back to square one arguing about whether shootouts are a money maker.

However, if we agree shootouts are a gimmick, I hope we can also agree that a shootout loser shouldn't get zero points. To me they either need to dump the shootout or keep the loser point in shootouts. Zero points for a shootout loss is harsh. Likewise, giving a team two points for winning a shootout is B.S. They don't deserve two points.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
Just eliminate the loser point.
Tied going to OT should get you nothing.

Don't like it? Does your goalie suck at shootouts? Do your shootout choices suck? Don't go to the shootout.
Is your team too slow for 3 on 3 OT? Don't go to OT.
Win it in regulation.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->