J.I.A.H.N Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Just want to bring this up as an item, as I keep hearing it over and over! Before "loser" points , which is actually "winner" points was created The NHL had a point system of 2 points for a win 1 point for a regulation tie.no overtime, a tie was a tie 0 points for a Loss I believe the Canucks would have 3 less points under that system, because of the wins in OT, but other teams may have less total points, if they win their games in over time or shoot out. Just needs to be said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 It's too tough to predict as teams will play the last few minutes of regulation differently knowing they are assured a point then take their chances in OT or the SO. To me "loser points" indicates that a team tends to be in more close games (and then suck at OT and SOs). A team doesn't have to apologize for having a lot of "loser points" as any team can "earn" them. Another way to think of it is that "loser points" are just ties and the NHL decided to make ties more exciting by giving out an extra point to the team that "won" after regulation. Edit: And one last thing: I think the NHL should make the tiebreaker just regulation wins, not the current ROW. Winning in 3 on 3 overtime is almost as gimmicky as winning in a shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger-Hearted Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: Just want to bring this up as an item, as I keep hearing it over and over! Before "loser" points , which is actually "winner" points was created The NHL had a point system of 2 points for a win 1 point for a regulation tie.no overtime, a tie was a tie 0 points for a Loss I believe the Canucks would have 3 less points under that system, because of the wins in OT, but other teams may have less total points, if they win their games in over time or shoot out. Just needs to be said Bring back the old format. Enough with sugar-coating wins and consolation points. I remember back when hockey was hockey and a tie used to either feel like a win or a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead73 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The NHL's goal was to rid the game of two teams scared to lose their tied point and played defense only. To solve they added the incentive of the extra point to drive some offense into the games. This was a simple miscalculation on their part... They should have simply removed the point for the tie game. If all you could get was two points for the win more teams would look for offense I would think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzy Desjardins Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 There was still 5 min overtime. Just no shootout, and a loss was 0 points regardless. And with regards to our record and play this year. . 3 on 3 is kind of a gimic as well like the shootout. It is far from 5 on 5 or even 4 on 4 hockey. So I think this team is slightly better than our record and point total indicates. And in the playoffs it's all 5 v 5. If they never changed the rules we would have a few more ot wins and a few less ot losses I'm sure. Which would put us 2nd in the Pacific comfortably. 3 on 3 really hurt this team early on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Hasn't this been beaten to death enough times already? Until the NHL actually entertains change, can there really be anything left to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boddy604 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 If there's just 1 point for a tie and no extra 1 for winning in ot then teams tied in the 3rd are better off playing d and taking their 1 point over risking getting nothing at all. No points if you don't win in regulation makes no sense, 2 league leading competitive teams vs each other then get no points while a middle team climbs the standing for beating a bottom feeder like the Oilers. That just ruins everything. 1 point each plus 1 more for winning in ot just is the best option. It keeps teams invested in actually winning the game, keeps more teams in the running which means more fans going to and watching hockey games which means more money. So 2 points for a win and nothing otherwise means playoffs are likely decided by this time of year and then there's 14 fan bases that aren't generating revenue like they would be otherwise. Bad news for the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckledraggin Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I'd rather see 3 points for a regulation win and the rest can stay the way it is. If you incentivize teams to win in regulation, it could change the style of play and open up scoring. Overall points would be skewed towards the more dominant teams, but there would still be plenty of points to make for exciting playoff races, which I think was the original intent of bringing in the loser point. It may also keep the boring shutdown teams looking to get points by any means necessary, from making the playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salmonberries Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Personally I would rather have the much higher draft position than all the loser points we have accumulated. It's tough as a fan when you know in your heart that we're just as bad as many of the teams well below us in the standings and we'll be watching them grab elite talent at the draft. But it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Salmonberries said: Personally I would rather have the much higher draft position than all the loser points we have accumulated. It's tough as a fan when you know in your heart that we're just as bad as many of the teams well below us in the standings and we'll be watching them grab elite talent at the draft. But it is what it is. Actually, if we went back to tie games, all it would mean is we'd be tied with Anaheim instead of 2 points ahead. Edmonton would be just as far back from us as they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drsofthands Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 i think they should do what soccer does, 3 points for a win, 1 point to each team for a tie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEON.KNEE Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 The problem with not having the OT worth anything is that both teams play for a Tie to at least split the points in fear of receiving nothing. My buddy at work is a huge advocate for a 3 point system for all games. a win is 3 points. if you win in OT you get 2 points with the loser receiving 1. With this system, every game is worth 3 points. This would cure the logjam in the standings and this is why the NHL will not implement this logical solution to what some fans dislike. The NHL would prefer the standings to be close up until the very last week of play to give weaker markets a better chance at attracting fans. Consider the attendance at places like Columbus and Nashville that are very respectable when the team is playing well. If these teams were out of a playoff spot for the last month of play the stadiums would be ghost towns and the NHL does not want that, regardless of how logical a 3 point system is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEON.KNEE Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Salmonberries said: Personally I would rather have the much higher draft position than all the loser points we have accumulated. It's tough as a fan when you know in your heart that we're just as bad as many of the teams well below us in the standings and we'll be watching them grab elite talent at the draft. But it is what it is. I would NEG this if it was possible. There is so much more value in having our young players play meaningful games than have them just coast by and accept mediocrity. This is what has become of the Oilers. A losing culture where every loss was justified by menial achievements. I would rather see our young players play hungry, play hard for each other and not accept losing. Even if this team gets knocked out of the first round, it is imo much more valuable to the team in the long term than getting a top 5 player. Lets be real, the Canucks would not have a shot at Matthews, so why not play and develop the right way and still get a good player from the first round? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 9 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: 1 point for a regulation tie.no overtime, a tie was a tie I guess that depends on how far back you go. From 1983 until the loser point was introduced, the NHL played a 5 minute OT. If it was still tied after OT, then it was still a tie. Apparently they also played OT for regular season games prior to 1942, but it was eliminated due to the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 2 points for regulation win. 1 point for overtime win. 0 points for a loss. Does it really have to be hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead73 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Any format that offers points for a tie will lead to teams trying to protect that point with defensive schemes, if you give them something for anything less then a win then they will play down to that level, too much money at stake. Only real flaw to a win only points format is the legitimate games where two teams just cannot score... shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 It does make it for a tight playoff race. It makes more teams in contentions which means more fans focus on their team down the stretch, which equals more revenue. Even in Vancouver, take away our loser points and in mid Jan our building would be empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said: 2 points for regulation win. 1 point for overtime win. 0 points for a loss. Does it really have to be hard? What if the game is still tied after the OT (assuming we're talking a 5 minute OT)? I would prefer a return to the 2 pts for a win, 1 pt for a tie, 0 pts for a loss. No regular season OT, no shoot outs. If the NHL wants to stick with the gimmicks then, 3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for an OT win with 1 loser pt, and only 1 pt for a shoot out win with no loser point. This puts pressure on both teams to try and win before the shoot out. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boddy604 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 9 hours ago, Salmonberries said: Personally I would rather have the much higher draft position than all the loser points we have accumulated. It's tough as a fan when you know in your heart that we're just as bad as many of the teams well below us in the standings and we'll be watching them grab elite talent at the draft. But it is what it is. Losing in overtime is NOT the same as losing in regulation. Doesn't mean we're as bad as some other teams. Those teams had plenty of games they lost by 4-1, 3-1, 5-2, etc. They were never really in the game. We lost by one goal after 60+ minutes. That's a big difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverishCanucker Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 20 minutes ago, Gollumpus said: What if the game is still tied after the OT (assuming we're talking a 5 minute OT)? I would prefer a return to the 2 pts for a win, 1 pt for a tie, 0 pts for a loss. No regular season OT, no shoot outs. If the NHL wants to stick with the gimmicks then, 3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for an OT win with 1 loser pt, and only 1 pt for a shoot out win with no loser point. This puts pressure on both teams to try and win before the shoot out. regards, G. Losing Teams still have to get 1 point for a shoot-out competition no matter what you are saying because even shoot-outs are on the outside of Regulation Time just as it is for 3-on-3 OT. Just like I have said before, Losing Teams deserve at least 1 point for working very hard to keeping their game Tied at the end of Regulation Time no matter if they end their game in 3-on-3 OT or a Shoot-Out Competition. If it is worth suggesting my very own 5-Point System, then I can let you know! All games would be worth a value of 5 points no matter how each game ends! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.