Why Are There Still "Loser Points" Awarded?

[Peace Frog]

The NHL started the idea of awarding these loser points, in order to get teams to not just sit back in overtime and play for the tie. This system was implemented before the NHL brought in the shoot out format.

Now the there is a shoot out format, why are there still loser points awarded? With shoot outs implemented as the final option for deciding the outcome of a contest, there is no need to award loser points anymore; a winner is decided in every game!

Why don't they go back to the format of awarding two points for a win, and zero points for a loss?

Click to read more...

 

[Canada4Gold]

Because a hockey game is 60 minutes, they've essentially tied the game and overtime/shootout gives an extra point. I know Basketball, football, baseball, etc, etc doesn't do it.

I'd prefer they went to the 3 point system. If you can't be arsed to win in regulation then no full points for you.

 

[jmart21]

Because more teams can keep it interesting with regards to a playoff chase.

 

[ACC1224]

Every game should be worth 3 points.

 

[Pokecheck Prayer]

parity in the league

 

[Commander Clueless]

Because then people would probably complain even more about losing a point in a "skills competition".

 

[ConnorTO]

cause a team getting beat 10-0
is not the same as a team working hard and getting the tying goal

it's awarded for effort
two efforts is a win !

 

[trellaine201]

parity in the league

It shear business that allows "fans" to keep cheering and buying merchandise etc in hopes of making the play offs


loser pts are ridiculous.

 

[trellaine201]

Every game should be worth 3 points.

Yah how about that..3pts for a win in regulation and 2pts for a win in OT.

 

[headwire]

Every game should be worth 3 points.

I've thought this myself, but when you apply this format to current league standings it makes surprisingly little difference.

Edit:

Just did some checking. If you apply this formula to the current standings (ROW*3 + Wins-ROW*2 + OTL):

In the East, Tampa Bay would pass Montreal, Washington would pass the Islanders, Philadelphia would be ahead of Florida, and NJ would be ahead of Columbus.

In the West, Minnesota would pass be ahead of both Chicago and St. Louis, LA would pass Calgary, and Dallas would pass Winnipeg.

More changes to the standings than I would have thought.

 

[Silver91]

I've always thought that getting rid of the loser point and making SO Wins 1 point was the way to go. Encourages teams to win a hockey game, as a shoot out can go either way and even if you win, it's not as valuable. You can also continue to award 2 points for a SOW, and just take them out for tie-breakers...Make the standings tie-breakers:

1- ROW
2- SOL
3- OTL
4- Head-to-Head
5- Goal Differential

 

[hoglund]

The NHL started the idea of awarding these loser points, in order to get teams to not just sit back in overtime and play for the tie. This system was implemented before the NHL brought in the shoot out format.

Now the there is a shoot out format, why are there still loser points awarded? With shoot outs implemented as the final option for deciding the outcome of a contest, there is no need to award loser points anymore; a winner is decided in every game!

Why don't they go back to the format of awarding two points for a win, and zero points for a loss?

It's not really a "loser point" because after regulation time neither team lost and both teams get 1 point and play overtime for the extra point. Personally I think all games should award 3 points, 3 for a regulation win, 0 regulation loss, 2 points for ot win an 1 ot loss, this way all games are worth the same.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Isn't it obvious? To keep as many teams as possible in the race until as late in the season as possible.

I'm past the point of caring about it. In the end the best teams aren't concerned with 'loser points' anyway.

 

[Jack Bauer]

It's not really a "loser point" because after regulation time neither team lost and both teams get 1 point and play overtime for the extra point. Personally I think all games should award 3 points, 3 for a regulation win, 0 regulation loss, 2 points for ot win an 1 ot loss, this way all games are worth the same.

And the problem with that is the wider gap in the standings putting more teams out earlier and into tank mode.

The NHL wants teams to get points and stay in the race. That sells tickets and earns viewers down the stretch.

 

[Pilky01]

Because the NHL is run by idiots.

 

[Brown Dog]

Should be 3 points for a regulation win.

Or, better still, GET RID OF THE DAMN SHOOTOUT!

 

[gamer1035]

Exactly. It makes no ****ing sense. There are an uneven amount of points being awards during the season.

Every season should have a specified amount of points awarded out. Either 2 points per game, or 3 per game (giving a loser point and 2 points for winners in OT). End the doubt of whether or not a game awards 2 or 3 points.

 

[egd27]

It's not really a "loser point" because after regulation time neither team lost and both teams get 1 point and play overtime for the extra point. Personally I think all games should award 3 points, 3 for a regulation win, 0 regulation loss, 2 points for ot win an 1 ot loss, this way all games are worth the same.

Thank you, I'm not sure where people came up with this "loser point" concept, there's an extra point awarded for winning in OT or SO.

Also agree with you and ACC on making all games worth 3 points

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

I don't know why any of you care for points. Go to win %.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

personally i think two things should happen
just go by pure wins, and none of this otl loss extra point or from the shootout stuff
so the teams winning whether it be reg, or ot only wins should matter, cause
having a bunch of otl or shootout losses and racking up points is sorta meh

and getting rid of the shootout altogether, and just go to 3 vs 3 ot for 5 mins, and if its still not decided keep doing it till a team wins
cause shootouts make goalies look bad and is unfair to add
its like a skill comp which isn't what i personally want, i want a well deserved win
not some fancy deke on no one and making goalies look like duds

so go by wins(like in the nba), and take out the shootout and go to a 3 vs 3 format in ot
thoughts?

 

[achtungbaby]

Isn't it obvious? To keep as many teams as possible in the race until as late in the season as possible.

I'm past the point of caring about it. In the end the best teams aren't concerned with 'loser points' anyway.

Agreed. MLB has it best in this context. Who won? Who lost? That's it.

 

[King Mapes]

Thank you, I'm not sure where people came up with this "loser point" concept, there's an extra point awarded for winning in OT or SO.

Also agree with you and ACC on making all games worth 3 points

Because it's called Overtime loss.

It's just to create close races. Same reason we don't do a 3-2-1-0 format that makes the most sence.

 

[Erdinger]

Because more teams can keep it interesting with regards to a playoff chase.

How come the Leafs are still never invited to the party?

 

[Preisst*]

I've been saying the same thing for years but my suggestion will never pass cuz it makes to much sense.

- if the teams are still tied after 60 minutes you go to a 10 minute 4 on 4 OT

- you win the game you get 2 points.

- you lose the game you get 0 points

- if the teams are still tied after OT neither team gets a point.

Before posters go ballistic on this idea (like has happened in the past) let me add that I think that less then 5% of the games will ever end up with the zero points awarded.

This forces teams to TRY to win each and every game. I think less games will go to OT and very few games will ever end up tied cuz both teams will go all out for the win. You don't win the game you get nothing.

Force the teams to try and win each and every game.

 

[Anthrax442]

I would like to see a W-L system. Nothing else, you won or lost.