babych Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 I've always been a big proponent of this: Regulation Win - 3 pointsOT/SO Win - 2 pointsOT/SO Loss - 1 point Regulation Loss - 0 points This still gives the NHL some loser points to keep the standings closer but rewards teams for putting the effort in to get it done in regulation. I'm so tired of watching teams sit back with a couple minutes left in the 3rd so they can get that guaranteed point. Having 2 extra available in regulation would quell some of that thinking. I'm with you on this. The idea that sometimes there are 2 point games and then other times 3 point games really annoys me. If the NHL is dead set on the loser point then make all games 3 point games. I do like the post above mine: basically we go to a baseball style system with wins and losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Bring back ties IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 hate loser points, hate the shootout, bring back ties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 We'll never see the removal of the loser point. It's Bettman's ultimate parity tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 2 for a win in regulation. 1 for a win in OT/Shootout. 0 for a loss of any kind. You'll always see a huge 3rd period if you put in a system like that. Teams won't try to go to get to overtime to guarantee a point anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam13371337 Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 im all for the 3 point system, It makes so much sense.. Even football (soccer) adopted this some years ago.... however it will never happen for 1 simple reason: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ by keeping teams artificially close to each other, lower end American teams can sell more tickets by fooling their fans into thinking they still have a shot at the playoffs... if a team by December is 20-30 points out of playoff contention, then fans might stop showing up for the rest of the season... just another reason to thank dead-beat American money blackhole teams for hurting the game. Thank you panthers, coyotes, jackets, Hurricanes, Stars, and the avalanche for existing for the sake of existing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 There are no shootouts in the playoffs and 5 minutes of overtime per game in the regular season isn't going to say much. Those stats don't really say much towards the playoffs unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Loser points are one of the main reasons LA is close to a Playoff spot. Loser point is going no where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 We'll never see the removal of the loser point. It's Bettman's ultimate parity tool. Yeah, this - and a draft system at least somewhat compliant to tanking. Those two things keep people tuning in & clicking webpages around this time of year rather than giving up on their crappy team and turning their attention to basketball & baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Loser point needs to go. Im a fan of the 3 point system that im sure we've all heard of Regulation win = 3 points Overtime win = 2 points Shootout win = 1 point Loss = 0 Losers should not be rewarded thats not the 3 point system... maybe thats what you want but the point is for wins to count more and every game be worth 3 points. nt tho. regulation win/OT win - 3pts shootout win - 2pts shootout loss - 1pt sometimes OT wins are proposed to be 2 pts/OTL 1pt. but literally it has never been what you proposed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pianoman13 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Loser point needs to go. Im a fan of the 3 point system that im sure we've all heard of Regulation win = 3 points Overtime win = 2 points Shootout win = 1 point Loss = 0 Losers should not be rewarded This would not work, the problem right now is that not all the games are worth the same number of points. Your system isn't helping. 3 for regulation win, 2 for overtime/shootout win, 1 for overtime/shootout loss, 0 for regulation loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxVerstappen33 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 The same whiners groan about the "loser" point are the same ppl who whine about how the shootout isn't fair. If a tie is considered an even game then shouldn't both teams get credit ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxVerstappen33 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 They'll keep the turtle-points if they're so sincere about their bloody expansion. Too many times now, I've tuned in to think I'm watching a soccer match. They've stifled out the creativity/attack, by rewarding the plodding, unimaginative stragglers of this league. Employing aging, once mediocre players, as abundantly supplied coaches, tasked to over-defend, & extinguish any spark of an offensive-notion. How about a new rule, where all bench coaches cover their heads with a cloth bag, thereby preventing their real-time observance? Allow them to just stagger back & forth, barking out the same ol' tired doctrine... BTW, Bettman is a subterranean mole rat. He's sold this game to US interests.They'll keep the turtle-points if they're so sincere about their bloody expansion. Too many times now, I've tuned in to think I'm watching a soccer match. They've stifled out the creativity/attack, by rewarding the plodding, unimaginative stragglers of this league. Employing aging, once mediocre players, as abundantly supplied coaches, tasked to over-defend, & extinguish any spark of an offensive-notion. How about a new rule, where all bench coaches cover their heads with a cloth bag, thereby preventing their real-time observance? Allow them to just stagger back & forth, barking out the same ol' tired doctrine... BTW, Bettman is a subterranean mole rat. He's sold this game to US interests. That's BS. Maybe the last 2 minutes are a little less aggressive if it's tied in the 3rd. Notice how they call division games 4 point games ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsey Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Loser point needs to go. Im a fan of the 3 point system that im sure we've all heard of Regulation win = 3 points Overtime win = 2 points Shootout win = 1 point Loss = 0 Losers should not be rewarded Reg win - 2 OT win - 1 There should be no reward for shootout. Teams will play less safe to grab that extra point. 5mins of 4 on 4, then 5mins of 3 on 3. That's what I'd like to at least see. They should try it for the pre-season and see how many times the game is still tied by the end of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Loser point needs to go. Im a fan of the 3 point system that im sure we've all heard of Regulation win = 3 points Overtime win = 2 points Shootout win = 1 point Loss = 0 Losers should not be rewarded I'd be inclined to put a gambling aspect to this. If the game is a draw after 60 minutes then each team gets a point. They may then choose to gamble that point away by going to OT (winner gets 2 points, loser gets 0), or they can just opt to have the game end and each team keeps the single point. Both teams have to agree to take the risk. If they do go to OT and it ends in a draw then they may choose to agree to end the game (each keeping their point) or they may agree to risk their point by going to the shootout. The winner gets 1 point and the loser gets 0. This gambling aspect should work well with Vegas coming in to the league. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALGARY! Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I'd be inclined to put a gambling aspect to this. If the game is a draw after 60 minutes then each team gets a point. They may then choose to gamble that point away by going to OT (winner gets 2 points, loser gets 0), or they can just opt to have the game end and each team keeps the single point. Both teams have to agree to take the risk. If they do go to OT and it ends in a draw then they may choose to agree to end the game (each keeping their point) or they may agree to risk their point by going to the shootout. The winner gets 1 point and the loser gets 0. This gambling aspect should work well with Vegas coming in to the league. regards, G. LOL - So what would happen, the coaches get together and decide whether they both wanna gamble that extra point? Seems like it might be a disaster come this time of year, if you got one team soundly in the playoffs and one thats say 2 points out of a playoff spot, the team who is a lock wouldnt bother gambling, thus they both wouldnt be in agreement, and takes the skill element out of earning a playoff spot haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I'd be inclined to put a gambling aspect to this. If the game is a draw after 60 minutes then each team gets a point. They may then choose to gamble that point away by going to OT (winner gets 2 points, loser gets 0), or they can just opt to have the game end and each team keeps the single point. Both teams have to agree to take the risk. If they do go to OT and it ends in a draw then they may choose to agree to end the game (each keeping their point) or they may agree to risk their point by going to the shootout. The winner gets 1 point and the loser gets 0. This gambling aspect should work well with Vegas coming in to the league. regards, G. What happens if one coach wants to play the OT and the other coach doesnt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_Canuckian Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Yep, can't stand the loser point myself. The sad part of it all is that when the team loses it's not really a big deal since they still got a point out of it. The win isn't as satisfying either. I know - a win is a win is a win - but somehow it's not as compelling. Fans will live and die with their team if there is more at stake. Take out points altogether, and a win is a win no matter when, and the same with a loss. Fans aren't stupid. If a team is somewhat competitive because of loser points, the fans know that the team isn't actually as good as their point totals suggest. And I'm sorry, if fans can't handle their team losing a few extra points because they aren't good enough, then maybe they need a better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 What happens if one coach wants to play the OT and the other coach doesnt? Well, as I mentioned in my earlier post, both teams would have to agree to take the risk. If one team didn't want to go to OT then the game ends. LOL - So what would happen, the coaches get together and decide whether they both wanna gamble that extra point? Seems like it might be a disaster come this time of year, if you got one team soundly in the playoffs and one thats say 2 points out of a playoff spot, the team who is a lock wouldnt bother gambling, thus they both wouldnt be in agreement, and takes the skill element out of earning a playoff spot haha Yes, I'm being a bit facetious here. That being said, I do think all of this OT and shootout stuff is an even bigger joke. As to your question of how it would work etc, there would have to be a plan by each team as to whether they would, or would not agree to go in to OT. I suspect that this is something which would be decided upon by team management (coaches and GM) prior to the start of the game. There would also have to be some chance for a team to change this pre-game decision. What might decide a team against going to OT after regulation time could be the health of some of their players: for example, Pittsburgh may decide against going to OT if Crosby was injured and couldn't finish the regulation time game. Other factors may be that the coach feels his team was playing like something that dropped out of a tall cow's butt and they were lucky to have earned a single point in regulation, and they would probably get creamed in OT. It could also be a thing where one team dares another to go to OT. Think of it as something like a good football offense going against a good defense in a 4th and 1 situation and the game on the line. It would be good television, and maybe people would start to cheer for a draw after regulation in order to see what the two teams opt to do. Heck, it could be a new style of WWF where coaches call each other out, daring them to commit their team to OT in front of their hometown fans and so on. Teams which do need the extra point to make it to a playoff spot will likely be more willing to risk going o OT. The same could be true for teams which want to improve their ranking in the playoffs so as to avoid a particular opponent. Teams which feel that they do not need that extra point will usually opt out (to help keep their players healthy etc). This being said consider this scenario: St. Louis (currently listed as #1 in the West) looks like they have a 50/50 chance of playing LA or Calgary in the first round. Let's say that the Blues figure they have a better chance of beating the Flames rather than the Kings. They are playing a regular season game vs the Flames and it ends in a draw after regulation. Maybe the Blues do agree to OT as a means of possibly helping a weaker potential first round opponent into the final playoff spot. Also, for teams that do want to tank in order to improve their chances of getting a higher draft pick, I suspect they would usually opt in favour of OT so as to lose that point which they had just earned. Perhaps towards the end of the season, when they had secured that last spot with the highest % chance of drafting first, would they then start keeping their single point and would begin turning down chances of going to OT. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.