Time to Go Back to Ties

[Bgav]

**** ties

 

[cowboy82nd]

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

I would like to see the stats on that. That's more than 2 games a day. When did this happen?

 

[RageQuit77]

Ok. No needs to go any extremes really...

I'm concerned primarily for The World premier hockey league's capability to maintain the integrity of the Hockey. Eras comes and eras go, development and evolution of the game are inevitabilities, but it's also important to make revisits to the path and past choices made, as well as re-check motives of those past changes... Solipsistically homerist and pompous dollar gaze attitude of the league, and it's innate tendency to go wh*ring for audiences to what ever distances are not particularly things I'd personally consider as a best parts of an evolution platform of this lovely sport.

Back to topic.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

I have always said either abolish the point system entirely or only give the winner of the shootout 1 point while loser gets nothing.

 

[Clark Kellogg]

I agree. Either go back to ties, or go to a 3-2-1 point system. I'm tired of the artificial parity three point games create now.

How do thirty billionaires not understand that 2 does not equal 3?

 

[HisIceness]

Unless it's under hilarious circumstances like that Seahawks/Cardinals game this year, I don't even like ties in Football.

No more ties in the NHL please. They've been out of existence now since the end of the 03-04 season. No need to go back to them now.

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

Ties do not need to come back.

Shootouts can go only if 3 on 3 goes on with unlimited time until there is a winner.

 

[ToastrStutzle]

I like the 3-2-1 idea for points. Has anyone ever gone back and redone the points in the standings to see what kind of effect this would have on the totals?

 

[Butch 19]

And most importantly, why that drive for searching "winner" or "the best" have to go that far it can actually go beyond a boundary of a sport?

You know what words are missing from this entire thread: "fun" and "entertaining." I saw plenty of tie games when I was a kid at the Forum, and all my friends and I would all agree, why doesn't the NHL have OT? Someone needs to win this game."

Then they eventually brought in OT and the shootout. Both are fun and entertaining.

When NHL games could end in a tie, you were pretty much resigned to the fact that both teams shut down and started playing defense (to preserve their tie point) with ten to twelve minutes to go in the game. That was boring hockey. OT helped to start to get rid of this, but the possible 3 pt. game and shootout encouraged teams to play a more open style of play - and teams do just that right now.

When hockey was developing in it's cradle, there was no problems what so ever accept tie-results. Why? Because nature of Hockey doesn't oblige that there should be winner and loser every time. By objectively perceivable on-ice happenings within regulation, this is perfectly in line what is also behind of whole debate for re-introduction of tie to the NHL hockey.

Why?? because we didn't know any better Winning or losing >>> tie

It puzzles me that this thread even exists. The fact that some fans would prefer a tie game over OT ands SO is just crazy talk. Go home after 60 or 65 minutes with nothing resolved? That's more entertaining than staying for extra time to watch OT and/or a shootout?

Don't you like a little fun with your hockey?

North American nations aren't only hockey playing countries of the world, neither the League only a national project anymore.

I couldn't care less what any other league in the world does? why should I? The NHL is all that I need.

 

[Chili]

I think ties have less chance of returning then the red line.

The simplest tweak to me would be to make a regulation win worth three points.

All games would then be worth the same value.

As it is now, when a game is tied late, often the teams are just playing to get to overtime, ensuring the guaranteed point.

3 possible points or 1 guaranteed would influence some to 'go for it'.

 

[RageQuit77]

For avoiding this going to second round of long rants, I answer only to this:

Don't you like a little fun with your hockey?

Yes I do, but whole issue in this thread seems to be elsewhere, it's in merely how to keep it hockey, and construct honest point system, and keep player statistic clean from non-necessary extra-hockey noise.

For me OT gimmick with loser point is not that fun Hockey unless we are playing for that real win in real hockey in real play-offs with full teams, while SO have nothing to do with hockey. It's also far from anything that I'd call even remotely fun.

 

[Dabeast]

no..

 

[Butch 19]

For avoiding this going to second round of long rants, I answer only to this:



Yes I do, but whole issue in this thread seems to be elsewhere, it's in merely how to keep it hockey, and construct honest point system, and keep player statistic clean from non-necessary extra-hockey noise.

For me OT gimmick with loser point is not that fun Hockey unless we are playing for that real win in real hockey in real play-offs with full teams, while SO have nothing to do with hockey. It's also far from anything that I'd call even remotely fun.

It's a game. Lighten up and enjoy it.

You sound like you're going to the opera.

 

[Quarter]

I like the 3-2-1 idea for points. Has anyone ever gone back and redone the points in the standings to see what kind of effect this would have on the totals?

There's a link here showing how last season's standings would have looked in under a 3-2-1-0 system.

For those too lazy or unable to click on the link, the only change is that Boston would have made the playoffs instead of Detroit.

 

[pcruz]

There's a link here showing how last season's standings would have looked in under a 3-2-1-0 system.

For those too lazy or unable to click on the link, the only change is that Boston would have made the playoffs instead of Detroit.

The issue isn't whether the system would have any effect on the final standings, it's all about artificially bunching a whole lot of teams together giving it the appearance that there is a chance for all those teams to make the playoffs.

What they don't see though, is that at 3 points per game, teams aren't out of the running until they're in the double-digits behind one in a playoff spot. All that's needed is 3 extra wins and bam, 9 point lead eliminated.

 

[Quarter]

The issue isn't whether the system would have any effect on the final standings, it's all about artificially bunching a whole lot of teams together giving it the appearance that there is a chance for all those teams to make the playoffs.

What they don't see though, is that at 3 points per game, teams aren't out of the running until they're in the double-digits behind one in a playoff spot. All that's needed is 3 extra wins and bam, 9 point lead eliminated.

Oh no, I agree. Any effects on the standings are just a bonus of using a fair, consistent point system.

As for the second paragraph, it's not as simple as just putting together a three-game win streak. The same scenario still occurs now as teams still need to account for the other teams around them. It will still be difficult to make up a 7 or 8 point deficit under a 3-2-1-0, just as it's difficult to make up a 4 or 5 point deficit now... relative to the current system it will be easier though under the 3-2-1-0, but that's only because we'll know that every game will give out three points regardless of who wins. That can't be said with what is essentially a random point system in place currently.

 

[Blueline Bomber]

I'd expect that extending OT and removing the additional point earned in the shootout would likely decrease the number of possible ties significantly. Teams would have more time to earn the additional point, and there'd be less "playing for the shootout" if the only chance to earn an additional point ends in OT.

 

[MNNumbers]

Oh no, I agree. Any effects on the standings are just a bonus of using a fair, consistent point system.

As for the second paragraph, it's not as simple as just putting together a three-game win streak. The same scenario still occurs now as teams still need to account for the other teams around them. It will still be difficult to make up a 7 or 8 point deficit under a 3-2-1-0, just as it's difficult to make up a 4 or 5 point deficit now... relative to the current system it will be easier though under the 3-2-1-0, but that's only because we'll know that every game will give out three points regardless of who wins. That can't be said with what is essentially a random point system in place currently.

I agree with this, and as an example, I put forward the following scenario:

Let's say my Wild are in 9th place with 10 days left in the season, so 5 games for all teams. Let's also say that St Louis is in 8th place, 4 pts ahead, and Calgary is in 7th place, 5 pts ahead of the Wild.....

Hypothetically:
Calgary...82......38-33-6 with 6 OT wins
St Louis....81....36-32-9 with 8 OT wins
Minn.......77.....35-35-7 with 7 OT wins

Now, on this particular night, the Wild play in New Jersey and win. Hurray!!! We are going to gain in the playoff race....Since St Louis is at Calgary late. So, I tune in to watch the StL/Cgy game, and....St Louis wins in OT.

Result.
Calgary....83
StLouis....83
Minnesota..79. No gain at all. Or, very little.....

Under a 3 pt system, you would instead have something like...
Calgary....114 (32-6-6-33)
St Louis....109 (28-8-9-32)
Minnes......105 (28-7-7-35) (Granted, here, Minnesota is a little closer to StL, but Cgy is further away, too).

Now, If Minny wins in Regulation, and StL wins in OT....

Cal....115
StL...111
Minn...108. Now, you can see the gap actually closing.

That's why a 3-pt system works.


However, for as little sense as a 2-2-1-0 system really makes, the only way it will ever change is if someone in the BOG can make a FINANCIAL argument as to why there is more money coming in if a change is made. And, I can't see that, so we are stuck with what we have.

 

[Kirikanoir]

It puzzles me that this thread even exists. The fact that some fans would prefer a tie game over OT ands SO is just crazy talk. Go home after 60 or 65 minutes with nothing resolved? That's more entertaining than staying for extra time to watch OT and/or a shootout?

The issue I, and others here have is not the final result but how that result is achieved. The NHL has no business using a gimmick to decide the winner and loser of games. It IMO cheapens the final result and between that and handing out points to losing teams it makes the league look like a joke.

You talk about going home after 60 or 65 minutes with nothing resolved, worse is watching a tense close exciting game for 60 or 65 minutes then having that excitement come to a screeching halt and replaced with some gimmicky play that is no better than flipping a coin to decide a winner.

I get it many don`t want ties, fine then come up with a better way to resolve those games, and no more giving out points to losing teams. Only in the NHL can teams tie win and lose all in the same game

 

[Sens]

You need a W/L for gambling purposes

 

[IslesNorway]

3 points for a win
2pts for OT win
0 pt for ot loss

1 point each if no goal in OT

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Agreed. 3-on-3 is stupid and I've been against it from the beginning. Yes its better than a shootout but constant 2-1 or 3-1 breaks is kind of dumb.

10 minutes of 4-4 and then a tie if no one wins.

Drop the shootout all together its beyond tiresome at this point.


It'll never happen though, since when does the NHL care about what the fans want to see

 

[PM]

Not sure about ties but the loser point needs to go. Only 7 teams are under .500 right now and four of those are only one win under. What kind of crappy merit badge participation league has almost 75% of the teams over .500? My team, the Canucks, are the worst they've ever been since I started following them in the late 90's and we're still only a few points back of a playoff spot because of shootout wins and OTLs.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't care for ties per say, but drop the freaking loser point already.You lose you deserve nothing, this isn't kindergarten.

 

[Loui21Eriksson]

You need a W/L for gambling purposes

You think there is no gambling in Soccer?