Time to Go Back to Ties

[SladeWilson23]

I've advocated for a 3-1-0 system in the NHL in past points system threads and I'll continue to do so. It's the most ideal point system still used in sports.

Does anybody know what percentage of games in soccer end in ties?

 

[KingsFan7824]

I don't really understand why teams who constantly lose in OT/SO get rewarded so heavily for failing to be clutch, and hence we get teams with significantly more losses in playoffs in comparison to teams with more wins but more of their losses in regulation instead of OT(which makes no difference when it comes to playoffs).

It's not being rewarded in OT/SO. Teams split 2 points if they're tied at the end of regulation. Since 3v3 is rare during the standard 60 minutes of play, teams get rewarded if they're "clutch" enough to be tied with the other team in regulation. The winning team in OT/SO gets the extra point.

I agree. I hate this point system. Last year we had 2 teams make the playoffs with less wins than a team who didn't make the playoffs if I remember correctly. That shouldn't happen ever in my opinion.

You're talking about Philly(41 wins), Detroit(41), and Boston(42). The biggest thing there, is that Boston lost the last game of the year, 6-1, at home, to Ottawa, who was well out of the playoffs. If the Bruins even get a "loser point" in that game, they finish ahead of Detroit.

You can look at the wins, but you can also look at the losses. Should a team with more losses in regulation during the season make the playoffs with fewer? There's no 3v3 or SO come playoff time. Last year, Philly had 27, Detroit with 30, and Boston ended with 31. All Boston had to do was not lose in regulation in that last game of the year.

If any team's season comes down to OT/SO points, then you haven't done well enough in regulation during 82 games. If you miss the playoffs because of that, that is the team's fault, not the point system. Everyone knows what the rules are before the season starts. The rules don't change. There are 164 possible points for every team. Go get as many as you can. If you have fewer than another team, there's no crying in hockey, and go home.

 

[Braunbaer]

why does the NHL need ties the NBA doesnt have them neither does MLB te NFL does but they are so rare they are almost not worth mentioning same with MMA

If you believe in ties then you probably believe every kid deserves a participation trophy because they tried

sports is about winning and losing nobody goes to a game hoping for a well played game that ends in a tie

Yep, it's so much better to randomly give out a win to one of two teams that didn't play well enough to deserve the win.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

I've advocated for a 3-1-0 system in the NHL in past points system threads and I'll continue to do so. It's the most ideal point system still used in sports.


This will never actually happen though. If the PA refuses to accept 10 minutes of overtime, they sure as hell aren't accepting continuous overtime during the regular season.

I don't see why it couldn't happen. It's agreeable during the playoffs.

If it's needed, toss the PA a bone. Continuous overtime should result in slightly longer games which should result in slightly larger concession sales. Offer up a few additional nickels to the PA should they accept continuous overtime during the regular season.

 

[Seanaconda]

I don't see why it couldn't happen. It's agreeable during the playoffs.

If it's needed, toss the PA a bone. Continuous overtime should result in slightly longer games which should result in slightly larger concession sales. Offer up a few additional nickels to the PA should they accept continuous overtime during the regular season.

They don't want injuries too. Plus I don't think tv stations wanna run hockey forever alot of times when it's not the playoffs.

 

[Toene]

Game goes to OT
Both teams get a point.
10 minute 3-on-3 for the additional point
If neither team scores, no more points are awarded in that game.

Then they go to a shootout, which doesn't award points, but the winning team gets a shootout win in the standings, which will act as the first tiebreaker when determining playoff position.

Everybody wins. A teams point totals aren't artificially inflated by the shootout, spectators to the game still get a winner and a loser, and the shootout still has some impact (albeit decreased) on the standings.

Best idea in this thread.

 

[KingsFan7824]

why does the NHL need ties the NBA doesnt have them neither does MLB te NFL does but they are so rare they are almost not worth mentioning same with MMA

If you believe in ties then you probably believe every kid deserves a participation trophy because they tried

sports is about winning and losing nobody goes to a game hoping for a well played game that ends in a tie

You can get 1, 2, or 3 points on a shot in the NBA, depending on where you shoot from. No matter the situation, no matter where on the ice, any shot in the NHL is only worth 1 goal at a time. Any game in the NHL is more likely to be tied at any point because of that, more often than games in the NBA.

Same thing with MLB and the NFL. In baseball, you can get 1, 2, 3, or 4 runs on a single hit(and they play every day, so if they go an extra 6 innings one game, nobody cares). There are 1 point, 2 point, 3 point, and 6 points plays in the NFL.

The 76-77 Canadiens, arguably the greatest team ever, had more ties than losses. There was no OT back then, but that might be all anyone needs to know about hockey when any shot is worth just 1 goal.

 

[Zakkk]

why does the NHL need ties the NBA doesnt have them neither does MLB te NFL does but they are so rare they are almost not worth mentioning same with MMA

If you believe in ties then you probably believe every kid deserves a participation trophy because they tried

sports is about winning and losing nobody goes to a game hoping for a well played game that ends in a tie

Basketball, baseball and football are completely different sports. You can't compare hockey to them at all.

And of course nobody goes to a game hoping for a tie just like nobody goes to a game hoping to lose.

Ties belong in hockey and you know how I know this? I know it because NHL used to have them and now NHL is constantly trying to come up with more and more ridiculous ways to get rid of it instead of just accepting that sometimes a hockey game ends in a tie. Nobody likes ties but that's hockey for you. Just like nobody likes ties in soccer but every soccer fan has accepted that ties belong in soccer. And soccer is still the worlds most followed sport!

3v3 overtime and shootouts are a joke. It's time to bring back the tie!

#MakeHockeyGreatAgain

 

[Eastopia]

Why make it more complicated than it needs to be?

Teams who push games past regulation should play standard 5-on-5 sudden-death until somebody scores the winner. The victor gets 2 points. The loser gets nothing.

Make it simple. Make it identical to playoff hockey.

I'd like that but as has been said the PA wouldn't accept it. Maaaaaybe if we shortened the season, which I am personally okay with. That's really the best way to do this.

If we still can't get that then my preference would be 5 minute 5v5 OT where the winner gets 2 points and the loser 0. If no one scores then it's a tie and both get 1 point each. 3v3s can be entertaining but it hurts the integrity of the game and shootouts are even worse.

 

[Braunbaer]

Just like nobody likes ties in soccer but every soccer fan has accepted that ties belong in soccer. And soccer is still the worlds most followed sport!

Not true.
If two teams, that are close to you in the standings, play each other ... you almost always root for a tie in that game.

 

[Quarter]

Does anybody know what percentage of games in soccer end in ties?

This would likely depend on the league in question. From a quick search though, the 12/13 Barclays Premier League had 27% of matches end in a draw.

Related fun fact: in 126 years of English football (ending with the 12/13 season and only accounting down to League 2), there had been 13,475 0-0 draws in 188,060 matches.

I don't see why it couldn't happen. It's agreeable during the playoffs.

If it's needed, toss the PA a bone. Continuous overtime should result in slightly longer games which should result in slightly larger concession sales. Offer up a few additional nickels to the PA should they accept continuous overtime during the regular season.

It's only agreeable in the playoffs because, in general, there are guaranteed days off in between games (and the whole need for a winner thing).

Say you have your standard 7:30 start on a Tuesday as the first half of a back-to-back. Regulation ends around 10pm. But then the game goes into overtime. And then another overtime. And then part of another. The game is ending around 1am local time and the team needs to catch a flight from their own time zone to the one over (ahead or behind). They'll get into the city at what, 5 or 6am the morning of a game that starts at 7 or 7:30pm. That's... not good. And considering that every arena in the NHL is used for other sports and entertainment it makes it harder for the league to reschedule any games due to scheduling conflicts.

It's a matter of player safety for the PA. And as brought up a couple posts above, it would only work with a drastically shorter schedule which will never get accepted by the owners because money.

 

[Braunbaer]

It's a matter of player safety for the PA. And as brought up a couple posts above, it would only work with a drastically shorter schedule which will never get accepted by the owners because money.

They didn't really care about the Rangers safety a few years back when they played like 15 playoff games in 6 days.

 

[Quarter]

They didn't really care about the Rangers safety a few years back when they played like 15 playoff games in 6 days.

That's why I said there is usually a day off in between games in the playoffs. But then you get the occasional back-to-back for games one and two or six and seven or two days off to ensure a Sunday afternoon match up so the league gets that sweet, sweet TV revenue.

 

[RageQuit77]

Comparing different systems

No SO/OT, Ties. Pts. = current system

Example: Central Division

Team|GP|Pts.|2-1-0|3-1-0
Chicago | 36| 49| 49| 71
Minnesota | 33| 46| 50| 68
St. Louis | 35| 41| 41| 59
Nashville | 33| 35| 35| 50
Dallas | 35| 35| 35| 49
Winnipeg | 36| 35| 35| 51
Colorado | 33| 25| 25| 37

 

[MNNumbers]

Does anybody know what percentage of games in soccer end in ties?

This year in the Premier League, it's 40 out of 170, about 23.5%.

However, it's not a good comparison to NHL because the league does not have as much parity as NHL does.

 

[Mightygoose]

I'll echo others with the 3-2-1-0 point system. Make them all worth 3.

Bring back ties, make OT 10 minutes but would rather see 4 on 4 return as someone is still more likley to score.

Was never a fan of the shootout. Don't even like to win this way.

 

[SladeWilson23]

This would likely depend on the league in question. From a quick search though, the 12/13 Barclays Premier League had 27% of matches end in a draw.

Related fun fact: in 126 years of English football (ending with the 12/13 season and only accounting down to League 2), there had been 13,475 0-0 draws in 188,060 matches.

Last season there were 107 draws out of 380 games. I'm not sure how the soccer system would work in the NHL, but 107 ties out of 380 games would be about 20 ties per team in the NHL.

 

[SladeWilson23]

This year in the Premier League, it's 40 out of 170, about 23.5%.

However, it's not a good comparison to NHL because the league does not have as much parity as NHL does.

Good point, but I wonder how relegation affects teams and their incentive to win.

 

[Seanaconda]

Good point, but I wonder how relegation affects teams and their incentive to win.

The lack of a draft probably affects it too

 

[Moops]

I'm a vocal proponent of a 3-2-1-0 point system, but the system as is does exactly what the NHL wants it to do - create false parity keeping more teams in the playoff race longer, thus keeping more eyes on the product for longer. Any personal preference is going to lose to the one that creates more revenue.

That and **** ties.

It actually doesn't. This is a false narrative that doesn't hold under any real scrutiny. A 3-2-1-0 system will keep as many teams in the ploff race as the current system.

 

[SladeWilson23]

It actually doesn't. This is a false narrative that doesn't hold under any real scrutiny. A 3-2-1-0 system will keep as many teams in the ploff race as the current system.

Problem is we don't know this until we try it out. Simply applying it to the standings today doesn't tell us anything because we don't know for sure how much harder teams would try in order to win in regulation.

 

[USAUSA1]

Hockey is a real man sport. No to ties, save that crap for wimpy Soccer. Do you want ties in the playoffs too? Yeah I thought so.

I am glad the nhl doesn't listen to Internet fans sometimes.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

This would likely depend on the league in question. From a quick search though, the 12/13 Barclays Premier League had 27% of matches end in a draw.

Related fun fact: in 126 years of English football (ending with the 12/13 season and only accounting down to League 2), there had been 13,475 0-0 draws in 188,060 matches.


It's only agreeable in the playoffs because, in general, there are guaranteed days off in between games (and the whole need for a winner thing).

Say you have your standard 7:30 start on a Tuesday as the first half of a back-to-back. Regulation ends around 10pm. But then the game goes into overtime. And then another overtime. And then part of another. The game is ending around 1am local time and the team needs to catch a flight from their own time zone to the one over (ahead or behind). They'll get into the city at what, 5 or 6am the morning of a game that starts at 7 or 7:30pm. That's... not good. And considering that every arena in the NHL is used for other sports and entertainment it makes it harder for the league to reschedule any games due to scheduling conflicts.

It's a matter of player safety for the PA. And as brought up a couple posts above, it would only work with a drastically shorter schedule which will never get accepted by the owners because money.

There's an easy answer for that.

Teams who are in a crunch as far as travel or time constraints go would need to adjust their coaching and player strategies to minimalize the length of the game.
If a team doesn't want to or can't go multiple overtime periods...get aggressive, take chances, force a win...one way or another.

 

[napoleon in rags]

Game goes to OT
Both teams get a point.
10 minute 3-on-3 for the additional point
If neither team scores, no more points are awarded in that game.

Then they go to a shootout, which doesn't award points, but the winning team gets a shootout win in the standings, which will act as the first tiebreaker when determining playoff position.

Everybody wins. A teams point totals aren't artificially inflated by the shootout, spectators to the game still get a winner and a loser, and the shootout still has some impact (albeit decreased) on the standings.

I like it.

I hate the shootout, but I realise that enough people like it that it won't be done away with. So yes, if the shootout is going to exist then I like this diminished role.

 

[Quarter]

Last season there were 107 draws out of 380 games. I'm not sure how the soccer system would work in the NHL, but 107 ties out of 380 games would be about 20 ties per team in the NHL.

A key difference is that goals are much more prevalent in hockey than they are in soccer. I'd like to assume that even with the absence of overtime, the higher goals-per-game alongside an extra incentive to win would outweigh the desire to sit back and take a tie (to a certain point; the further back that point of non-action is, the more effective the system). Given the nature of what's widely known as the loser point under the current system, that incentive doesn't really exist. You can pick up a ROW, sure, but you can get one past regulation as well so long as the game doesn't go to a shootout. It can't be said to be a certain fix before it's tested, of course. Getting to the point of testing an overtime-free 3-1-0 system is the true leap of faith though.

The NHL record for ties in a season is 24 by the 69/70 Flyers (76-game season). In that same season the only other teams with more than 16 were Minnesota (22) and Boston (19) while only two teams had 10 or fewer (Chicago, 9; LA, 10). Everyone else was in the middle. It's a much different game now of course.

There's an easy answer for that.

Teams who are in a crunch as far as travel or time constraints go would need to adjust their coaching and player strategies to minimalize the length of the game.
If a team doesn't want to or can't go multiple overtime periods...get aggressive, take chances, force a win...one way or another.

Thankfully we'll never get to that point. Physically punishing a team and its players for not winning soon enough is... yeah. Not good. Again. Player safety, etc..

If you're going to punish a team for not winning after however many minutes, then punish them in the standings.