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.