Why hasn't the NHL changed to a 3 point system for regulation win? Are they considering it?

[bobholly39]

Honest question - is there a reason why NHL hasn't shifted to that? I know a lot of fans are wanting this, and it seems like a natural and obvious change to me.

There's probably two main ways of doing this.

Option 1:

Regulation win 3 points
OT win 2 points
shootout win 1 point
Loss (any type) 0 points

Option 2:

Regulation win 3 points
OT/Shootout win 2 points
OT/Shootout loss 1 point
Regulation loss 0 points

I personally prefer the first, as teams will always be trying to win, since regulation win is worth more than OT win, and OT worth more than shootout, and loss worth 0 points. So teams are always going all out to win, whether at the end of regulation, or in OT, which makes the game more exciting. But - option 2 could work too, as it would allow all games to have the same number of points awarded (3), and still rewards team for seeking a win in regulation vs playing it safe to reach OT.

So the question is - why has the NHL not shifted to this? Have there been reports that they are seriously considering this, or have? Is there pushback for certain reasons? Or has it never even been seriously considered by owners?

What's your opinion - do you think NHL should change to one of those 2 systems? And which one makes more sense if so? And if not - why not?

I know some posters will comment about how they don't like shootouts and wish NHL would get rid of those, but I think that's highly unlikely. They're very marketable, and I don't think they're going away anytime soon, so seems like a moot point.

Click to read more...

 

[varsaku]

The 2 point system is mainly for optics. It is to artificially make the playoff race look close when in reality there is a pretty big difference in actual team quality.

 

[GrumpyKoala]

#BRING BACK THE TIED GAMES

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Option 2 is the most fair 3 pt system.

Winning a gimmick shouldn't be the same pts as winning an actual hockey game.

Likewise losing a skills gimmick shouldn't be punished like losing in regulation. You didn't get beat in a hockey game.

 

[kingsholygrail]

How about dump the point system entirely and go to a W/L system.

 

[Homesick]

Honest question - is there a reason why NHL hasn't shifted to that? I know a lot of fans are wanting this, and it seems like a natural and obvious change to me.

There's probably two main ways of doing this.

Option 1:

Regulation win 3 points
OT win 2 points
shootout win 1 point
Loss (any type) 0 points

Option 2:

Regulation win 3 points
OT/Shootout win 2 points
OT/Shootout loss 1 point
Regulation loss 0 points

I personally prefer the first, as teams will always be trying to win, since regulation win is worth more than OT win, and OT worth more than shootout, and loss worth 0 points. So teams are always going all out to win, whether at the end of regulation, or in OT, which makes the game more exciting. But - option 2 could work too, as it would allow all games to have the same number of points awarded (3), and still rewards team for seeking a win in regulation vs playing it safe to reach OT.

So the question is - why has the NHL not shifted to this? Have there been reports that they are seriously considering this, or have? Is there pushback for certain reasons? Or has it never even been seriously considered by owners?

What's your opinion - do you think NHL should change to one of those 2 systems? And which one makes more sense if so? And if not - why not?

I know some posters will comment about how they don't like shootouts and wish NHL would get rid of those, but I think that's highly unlikely. They're very marketable, and I don't think they're going away anytime soon, so seems like a moot point.

Why not back to 2 points for a win and zero for a loss

 

[New Jersey Devil]

If they're going to keep the shootout, then they should give the points out like this:

regulation/OT win: 2 points
shootout win: 1 point
any type of loss: 0 points

 

[Leon Lucius Black]

5 Points - Win by Paul Maurice in Regulation with St. Laurent or Lambert Reffing
4 Points - Win by Paul Maurice in OT/Shootout with St. Laurent or Lambert Reffing
3 Points - Win in Regulation
2 Points - Win in OT/Shootout
1 Point - Loss in OT/Shootout
0 Points - Loss in Regulation

 

[TropicOfNoReturn]

Honest question - is there a reason why NHL hasn't shifted to that? I know a lot of fans are wanting this, and it seems like a natural and obvious change to me.

There's probably two main ways of doing this.

Option 1:

Regulation win 3 points
OT win 2 points
shootout win 1 point
Loss (any type) 0 points

Option 2:

Regulation win 3 points
OT/Shootout win 2 points
OT/Shootout loss 1 point
Regulation loss 0 points

I personally prefer the first, as teams will always be trying to win, since regulation win is worth more than OT win, and OT worth more than shootout, and loss worth 0 points. So teams are always going all out to win, whether at the end of regulation, or in OT, which makes the game more exciting. But - option 2 could work too, as it would allow all games to have the same number of points awarded (3), and still rewards team for seeking a win in regulation vs playing it safe to reach OT.

So the question is - why has the NHL not shifted to this? Have there been reports that they are seriously considering this, or have? Is there pushback for certain reasons? Or has it never even been seriously considered by owners?

What's your opinion - do you think NHL should change to one of those 2 systems? And which one makes more sense if so? And if not - why not?

I know some posters will comment about how they don't like shootouts and wish NHL would get rid of those, but I think that's highly unlikely. They're very marketable, and I don't think they're going away anytime soon, so seems like a moot point.

In Option 1, there is still the issue of not all games being worth the same number of points. That seems to be the prevailing issue I have heard people bring up over the years.

I personally don't mind the current system too much. Teams know the rules going into the season. If they use them to their advantage, good for them. If they get burned, that's on them.
I do, however, think the ideal though is just win loss, 2 for a win of any kind, 0 for a loss of any kind. Make OT 10 minutes in the regular season. Less shootouts.
That said, no need for points really, it would come down to points/win % like in the MLB and NBA.

 

[Axe Man]

I like option 1. It's straight forward, fair and easy to understand. Hence the reason why the NHL won’t do it.

 

[DearDiary]

I like option 1. It's straight forward, fair and easy to understand. Hence the reason why the NHL won’t do it.

The NHL argued for a 3 point system in 2004. The proposal was put on hold until 2007 when every team owner rejected it.

It's easy to ignorantly blame the NHL, when it's the owners who want as much parity as possible.

 

[DaGap]

It keeps the teams close for more of the season

 

[Steerpike]

Option 1 is bad in similar ways to how the current system is bad. Instead of close games giving out extra points they give out fewer points.

Any solution is crazy if it doesn't include all games being worth the same number of points.

Good solutions:

1: Simply count wins and losses. shootout wins are only worth less in terms of breaking ties.
2: Your Option 2

Teams stupidly like the system the way it is because it sooort of looks like you can make 1 to 1 comparisons of point totals to the era before the 3 point game and before the shootout. So the GMs get to feel good about themselves.

It's like if the inch got shorter and suddenly everyone's boasting about how they got taller. Look how tall we are. Taller than our ancestors that's for sure!

 

[Salsa Shark]

Loser point keeps bad teams in playoff contention. Can;t imagine they'd want more teams playing out the string in Feb/March. Not a bad thing per se - bad teams have always made the playoffs. Hell for a long time 16 of 23 would make it

 

[Detroit Knights]

I just never understood why you would get a point if you lost in OT/SO. You lost the game, so why be rewarded for it?

IMO, I would have it as:

Reg. win - 2
OT/SO win - 1
Loss (any kind) - 0

That would give the most accurate standings and where teams are at. Tiebreaker would just be who had more Regulation wins and less OT/SO wins.

 

[severian]

In a perfect world there would be a 3-2-1-0 pt system. OT would be changed to 10 min 3 on 3 and shootouts would be a quirky rarity. The latter I can see happening. The former…no way. The NHL is too invested in the artificial parity and playoff races created by the loser point.

 

[Ezekial]

Faux parity.

No, they won't. I wish they would, every game should be worth the same amount.

 

[ItWasJustified]

There's probably two main ways of doing this.

Option 2 has been in use in European hockey since like 15 years. It's the best point system.

 

[HofT]

Option 3

Regulation/OT/Shootout win = 3 points
OT/Shootout loss = 1 point

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Option 3

Regulation/OT/Shootout win = 3 points
OT/Shootout loss = 1 point

Still has the problem of the loser point, and not every game being the same number of points.

 

[Siludin]

Because the NHL decided that participating in a contentious hockey games is more valuable in determining the quality of a team than winning/losing blowouts, with ROW being the weight on the other end of the table.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

How about dump the point system entirely and go to a W/L system.

Do that and then they have to play the games 5v5 all the way to the finish like in the playoffs. 3v3 or SO is not hockey.

But they would never do that because of tight scheduling and not knowing when the games end. Unless you bring back ties, but they don't want that either since apparently most fans don't like leaving a tie game.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

Current system keeps the standings artificially close, which goes towards parity, which is one of Gary's sacred attributes for this league that can never be touched. You make a standings system that makes sense and all of the sudden the standings will be very lopsided.

 

[McGarnagle]

They won't, and here's the secret: The current system and the ghost points from OT games make mediocre teams look better than they are (and bad teams look mediocre) and thus keep fans engaged longer in the season.

32 teams playing an 82 game schedule gives you 1312 games on the NHL calendar. Nominally, that means 2,624 points are up for grabs. So divided by 32, the "average" record would fall at an even 82 points. But because of the extra point from overtime games (most call it the loser point, but I consider it the teams getting 1 point each for the regulation tie then a ghost point for the winner), in the 2022 season, 2,912 standings points were awarded. Divided by 32, it shows that the actual average amount of points amongst all teams was 91. 91 isn't likely getting you in the playoffs, but it looks like a much more competent team than an 82 point team. More teams and fanbases thinking they're in it late in the season, more local buzz, more tickets sold to March home games, etc. Like look at last year's Canucks. If you just take the regulation record into account, they'd have finished with 84 points. That's barely .500, nothing to be excited about. But the OT points gave them 91 points, which is a few games out of the playoffs, a young team on the rise, promise for the future (lol in retrospect), etc.

It's a giant game of optics and an unfair system that the NHL deliberately doesn't want to fix.

I don't think keeping playoff races close or "parity" are as key to it as much as just flat out standing points inflation is.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Do that and then they have to play the games 5v5 all the way to the finish like in the playoffs. 3v3 or SO is not hockey.

But they would never do that because of tight scheduling and not knowing when the games end. Unless you bring back ties, but they don't want that either since apparently most fans don't like leaving a tie game.

Not at all. You just value regulation wins in tie breakers and move on with life.