Time to Go Back to Ties

[Never]

Regulation tie point, not loser point. You get an extra point for winning in OT/SO. You're awarded the point once regulation ends, so saying you earn it by losing in OT is a fallacy.

 

[edguy]

I think the OT/SO format is fine.
I would fix the point system by making a regulation win 3 points tho

 

[Channelcat]

The current overtime system is a joke. Three on three is fun to watch but it kills the integrity of each individual game that is decided by it.

Distributing 2 points in some games and 3 points in other games is just silly. When you have an extra point being given out in some games it devalues the importance of a win. You should either have a 3-0, 2-1 point system or go back to ties. From a fan perspective, an overtime win is not as satisfying as it used to be or should be, and an overtime loss is not as devastating.

I am 35 and I remember as a teenager watching the Sabres in the 90's, and it was so exciting to get an overtime win. Jeanneret would go nuts, you would pump for fist and maybe scream a wooo and go to bed happy. Winning a regular season overtime win is cheapened today and emotional up isn't as good.

You need the emotional ups and downs of sports to keep it interesting. The "well at least we got a point" is hurting the game. Stop giving away those points and let me feel elated with a win, or hurt with a loss.

What the NHL should do is go to a 7 or 8 minute 4 on 4 overtime. Four on Four still keeps the game open and three on three is fun, but come on, how can anyone take that seriously.

If there is no score in overtime then you have a time. There will be a lot less ties than there were in the old days and you now have a situation where there are no loser points. Much more fun to watch.

Great post. Its regrettable that the integrity of the game isn't a higher priority for Mr Bettman. Money is the only deciding factor now.

 

[Braunbaer]

Just end the game after 60 min. In the regular season you don't need a winner in each game.

 

[Bending and Tending]

A loser point is worse than a tie.

You mean an extra point for scoring first in a 3v3 or by winning a shootout, right?

 

[ClydeLee]

There's another thread, like often is, about wanting to remove offsides goals because who cares about getting it right...

isn't getting the call right even if it means a goal being taken away actually something that cares about the integrity of the game. Having the accurate things ruled out more accurately?

But there isn't a right/not right call in 2 vs 3 point systems. Or having games equal more points if it goes to OT or not, they're just differently valued systems that create slight different point outcomes overall.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Ties are awful

 

[awegrzyn]

Games go to Overtime. No points.

4 on 4 for 5 minutes.
IF one team scores they take everything, the looser gets nothing.
IF still tied, we go to:

3 on 3 for 5 minutes
IF one team scores they take everything, the looser gets nothing.
IF still tied, it's a tie and both teams get 1 point only.

Win 3
Loss 0
Tie 1
NO Penalty shots segment.
Every penalty taken in overtime is an automatic penalty shot.

10 minute overtime total, with no stops between 4 on 4, and 3 on 3. The 4th player has to get off the ice before half time, otherwise you get too many men on the ice penalty.

This covers all the bases: You would have goals, penalty shot once in a while, 4on4, 3on3, no looser points, short finish, no penalty shots, motivation to win, ties.

 

[KingsFan7824]

They have ties, which is what everyone says the loser point is. It's not a loser point, because you don't get the point for losing at any time in the game.

If every team, in every game, can potentially play in a 3 point game, it's going to even itself out over the course of 82 games. And if your season is coming down to the OT/SO point, then you haven't done enough during the year, so it's the team's own fault. Get the most points out of 164 that you can, and don't cry about it.

A team's best bet is still to win in regulation. If teams do that, they don't have to worry about anything else any other team does or doesn't do.

 

[The Red Helmet]

Regulation tie point, not loser point. You get an extra point for winning in OT/SO. You're awarded the point once regulation ends, so saying you earn it by losing in OT is a fallacy.

Yes but you still have a different number of points being distributed in games. That is a HUGE problem. And like I said before, the an overtime win is much more fun when you know the other guy isn't still getting a point. If it is late in the season and the Sabres and Wings are battling to get into the playoffs and the Sabres win in overtime, I don't want to have that victory tainted by the Wings getting a point.

Give me the full pain of a loss or the full elation of a victory. Overtime wins during the regular season used to be so much better. Enough of this getting a point for making it to overtime.

 

[Seachd]

Everyone seems to have a different opinion on this.

They way I see it, based on some ideas in this thread:

- I've never hated ties. I don't see why a regular season game needs to have a winner.

- I do hate the idea of some wins (regulation) being worth more than other wins (overtime/shootout).

- I think overtime is at least 5 minutes too short.

- The shootout sucks.

- I don't see how shootout wins could be a viable option for first tiebreaker when it comes to playoff positions.

- I don't see how 4-on-4 overtime is completely acceptable, but 3-on-3 somehow "kills the integrity" of the game.

 

[The Red Helmet]

Anyone saying it is not a loser point please just stop. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Loser point, point for making it to overtime, call it whatever you want, it is stupid. Please stop stunting the thread with your terminology lessons.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

It is fun to watch but for me, it devalues the game. It makes me less interested in watching the NHL overall. Also the whole point of my post was that giving the loser a point makes a win less valuable and less satisfying for a fan. There is a lot of parity in the league and a lot of games go to overtime. Having shootouts, 3 on 3 hockey and loser points decide who makes the playoffs, hurts the game in my opinion.

As it is now an OT or SO loss is worth half the value of a regulation win. If they just go to the 3 point game then that loss is reduced to 1/3 the value of a regulation win AND importantly, an OT or SO win is still worth less than a regulation win.

It has been shown (sorry, no link) that the 3 point game makes very little (but some) difference to the final standings. However I think those relative game value adjustments would make the perceived values match the points awarded and therefore lead to more satisfied fans. I would also add another minute or 2 to the OT to further reduce the number of shootouts.

 

[1909]

The current overtime system is a joke. Three on three is fun to watch but it kills the integrity of each individual game that is decided by it.

Distributing 2 points in some games and 3 points in other games is just silly. When you have an extra point being given out in some games it devalues the importance of a win. You should either have a 3-0, 2-1 point system or go back to ties. From a fan perspective, an overtime win is not as satisfying as it used to be or should be, and an overtime loss is not as devastating.

I am 35 and I remember as a teenager watching the Sabres in the 90's, and it was so exciting to get an overtime win. Jeanneret would go nuts, you would pump for fist and maybe scream a wooo and go to bed happy. Winning a regular season overtime win is cheapened today and emotional up isn't as good.

You need the emotional ups and downs of sports to keep it interesting. The "well at least we got a point" is hurting the game. Stop giving away those points and let me feel elated with a win, or hurt with a loss.

What the NHL should do is go to a 7 or 8 minute 4 on 4 overtime. Four on Four still keeps the game open and three on three is fun, but come on, how can anyone take that seriously.

If there is no score in overtime then you have a time. There will be a lot less ties than there were in the old days and you now have a situation where there are no loser points. Much more fun to watch.

If a win in regulation and OT would worth 3 points and a SO win would be 2 points, that would make more sense. So 1 point for the loser in SO or OT would be fine.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

3 on 3 is fun. Do 10 mins of 3 on 3 and if that doesn't score do 2 on 2 and if that doesn't work after 10 mins do 1 v 1 and if that doesn't work do just the goalies one on one.

I like it but the goalies can't be in the crease when it comes down to just them. No goaltending allowed.

 

[The Red Helmet]

As it is now an OT or SO loss is worth half the value of a regulation win. If they just go to the 3 point game then that loss is reduced to 1/3 the value of a regulation win AND importantly, an OT or SO win is still worth less than a regulation win.

It has been shown (sorry, no link) that the 3 point game makes very little (but some) difference to the final standings. However I think those relative game value adjustments would make the perceived values match the points awarded and therefore lead to more satisfied fans. I would also add another minute or 2 to the OT to further reduce the number of shootouts.

I would like to see the data but I am for ties over a 3 point for every game system. A 3 point system is for every game is something I find much more favorable to a some games 2, some games 3 points system.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Regulation tie point, not loser point. You get an extra point for winning in OT/SO. You're awarded the point once regulation ends, so saying you earn it by losing in OT is a fallacy.

I was wondering how long it would take for this post. This logic makes the loser point even worse.

"Hooray! You get a point just for making through regulation without losing!!" A sports league handing out points before the game is even over??

Ultimately the losing team gets a point. It's a loser point.


I'd happily go back to ties, but it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Rebels57]

No, we don't all agree. The shoot out is awesome

Well you're not awesome, so there.

 

[Neil Patrick Harris]

Ties are boring and terrible, so no.

 

[Suddenly Zyuzin]

All ties do is appease some of the people who will watch hockey regardless. 3 on 3 and Shootouts are designed to bring in more casuals. What's the benefit for the NHL to going back to ties?

 

[The Red Helmet]

Ties are boring and terrible, so no.

So you saw the thread title and replied without reading any of the original post or the thread I'll assume.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

My attitude is simple, just go straight wins and losses. Don't like how [insert OT/SO format here] decides that much? That's an argument against the overtime format, not against just going straight wins and losses. Don't like the gimmick? Get rid of the gimmick.

We've all been there, right? Hoping to at least get to OT so your team gets at least one point. Ultimately, where's the fun in that? Eh, got a point. Can't complain. Who cares if it took longer to lose? You don't get brownie points for losing in 17 innings in baseball or going to 5OT in basketball or anything extra for losing in OT in the playoffs in hockey. But in regulation hockey you should get an extra point because it took 60+ minutes and maybe a shootout? Don't buy it.

The entire points system is a holdover from when hockey used to have ties. Baseball and basketball don't have ties, so never an issue for them. And football has ties maybe once or twice a season, so never really needed to do anything too special there. But hockey? Lots of games ended in ties, so you needed a system to recognize that. Bam, 2 points for a win, 1 point for tie, 0 points for a loss. Easy.

But now we have a sport where ties can't happen, and yet we still have the two point system.... because? It's just point inflation to give the illusion of parity that really serves to make it so that most GMs can claim that they're at least above .500, not that that really matters anymore.

3 point games are the bane of hockey. Whether you want to bring back 1-1 ties or only have wins and losses, either are better than the current. I'm not a fan of the 3-2-1-0 system though, as I just don't like the idea of some wins being worth more than others.

 

[The Red Helmet]

All ties do is appease some of the people who will watch hockey regardless. 3 on 3 and Shootouts are designed to bring in more casuals. What's the benefit for the NHL to going back to ties?

The benefit is that the emotions from an overtime win or loss aren't cheapened by your team getting a point for losing and the other team getting a point when you win. The emotions sports are able to draw out of you is what keeps you coming back good or bad. I want the full loss or the full win. Overtime wins used to much more exciting and satisfying when there were ties. Now it is just okay. I used to watch a lot more hockey than I do today. For someone like me who loves hockey, but loves football much more, these kind of rules make a difference for me.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

So you saw the thread title and replied without reading any of the original post or the thread I'll assume.

Or he finds them horrible and terrible...just as I do, just like a lot of people do.

You're probably not going to find a more tie-friendly place than a message board filled with die-hard fans...and even here ties are deeply controversial.

Your view is based on seeing your team win one in person as a kid and somehow getting more out of it. My view is based on my one game a year as a kid being ruined by a tie multiple times. People have different experiences.

 

[Suddenly Zyuzin]

The benefit is that the emotions from an overtime win or loss aren't cheapened by your team getting a point for losing and the other team getting a point when you win. The emotions sports are able to draw out of you is what keeps you coming back good or bad. I want the full loss or the full win. Overtime wins used to much more exciting and satisfying when there were ties. Now it is just okay. I used to watch a lot more hockey than I do today. For someone like me who loves hockey, but loves football much more, these kind of rules make a difference for me.

That's just you though. I'm sure the NHL has smart people who run their numbers and see the fans that they attract by guaranteeing results in every game outnumber the fans who are offended by them. Heck when I attend games and there is a shootout, the majority of the arena is usually standing up and watching closely and cheering for scores or saves by the home team. There isn't a mass, "We should just leave now" movement going on.