The mirage of the loser point, a false dichotomy

[TheOtherOne]

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.

So I just need to throw this out there.
If you have a 3-2-1-0 system, you WILL have teams pulling their goalie in regular time with a tie game.

Near the end of the season when a team needs every point it can get. When you have a coach who is Roy-school aggressive. You may have two teams playing against each other with no goalies for 3+ minutes at the end of regulation time.

Look, I'm not saying this is necessarily a dealbreaker. But if you're going to argue for 3-2-1-0 you need to realize that this is the case.

 

[Winger98]

Drop the loser point, keep the shootout as an entertaining but valueless bit of fluff afterwards. If need be, make it some sort of tie breaker at the end of the season or something but don't award actual points for it.

 

[Flowah]

I think most people just don't like ties

To quote a hockey coach I had once:

"Ties are like ****ing your sister."

Agreed that the loser point really creates the illusion of parity. In reality, we know there's only a handful of real contenders every year. I like the 3, 2, 1, 0 system and I've never heard a good reason not to use it.

 

[HoweFan]

I disagree with the loser point label. The only way you can get it is by tieing a game. It makes it no different than the days of Gordon Howe. The difference is the winner gets an extra point when they play overtime. It should be a winner point. That’s why so many teams get 100 points now

 

[ricky0034]

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.

I would argue that 3 on 3 is every bit as much of a gimmick as the shootout is

does 3 on 3 even happen in regulation any more often than penalty shots do?

 

[GMR]

I would argue that 3 on 3 is every bit as much of a gimmick as the shootout is

does 3 on 3 even happen in regulation any more often than penalty shots do?

It is a gimmick. I don't agree with giving a loser of a 3 on 3 zero points.

 

[Bench]

To quote a hockey coach I had once:

"Ties are like ****ing your sister."