alt kilgore Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 11 hours ago, goblix said: Would it be more interesting to give 3 points to regulation win, 2 points for OT // Shootout win and 1 point for OT loss I'd say this is the best of the worst. There is no easy solution. I don't see the solution being some games worth 1 and some worth 2. Its just as bad as some worth 2 and some 3. All games should be valued equal. This solution still gives the incentive to win in the final regulation minutes, and retains a secondary incentive to win in OT/SO. Giving the team that eventually loses one point is more palatable when you look at it not as awarding losing, but as the one point team being awarded for playing well enough to drag the game to overtime. From the fans point of view they get to see an overtime, an obviously a more exciting entertainment event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahyoung Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 8 minutes ago, cammy said: precisely if you lose in OT you get nothing, so why would you go out and attack and leave yourself open, instead of just clogging up the middle and denying the opposition. Think of it from a coach perspective , you get judged on results and its better to take 1 point in that situation than to risk going for 2 and getting none. Teams will play not to lose rather then to win in this situation. the best defense is not offence if they come down and score at the other end Actually, it means playing in overtime is no different than playing in the final minutes of regulation time, except that it is sudden death. There is a 2 vs 0 point swing. If you want to win in regulation time, you should want to win in overtime more because the game could end at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cammy Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 1 minute ago, jmahyoung said: Actually, it means playing in overtime is no different than playing in the final minutes of regulation time, except that it is sudden death. There is a 2 vs 0 point swing. If you want to win in regulation time, you should want to win in overtime more because the game could end at any time. I think we will have to agree to disagree then. Don't get me wrong I prefer teams to go and get the win, but most sports coaches are conservative and will play not to lose in these situations, its a trend that shows across multiple sports not just hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cammy Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Just now, cammy said: I think we will have to agree to disagree then. Don't get me wrong I prefer teams to go and get the win, but most sports coaches are conservative and will play not to lose in these situations, its a trend that shows across multiple sports not just hockey. for example, when golden goal was introduced in the euros and world cup team played to go the shootout rather then being eliminated. When they went to silver goal though its a good blend of the two. two halfs of OT and its not sudden death, but if one team is leading at the half way mark the game ends. It means that if you go forward and attack to try and win the game if you concede one you are not eliminated immediately, and then team will go all out to get the goal to keep them in it once they go behind. there are still teams though that even with this will play not to lose and will double down on defense and go for the shootout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahyoung Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 1 minute ago, cammy said: for example, when golden goal was introduced in the euros and world cup team played to go the shootout rather then being eliminated. When they went to silver goal though its a good blend of the two. two halfs of OT and its not sudden death, but if one team is leading at the half way mark the game ends. It means that if you go forward and attack to try and win the game if you concede one you are not eliminated immediately, and then team will go all out to get the goal to keep them in it once they go behind. there are still teams though that even with this will play not to lose and will double down on defense and go for the shootout. Yeah well... I suppose there is another solution here. Winner gets 2 points. Loser gets 0. Tie gets 0. However, ties are still added up in the standings. In the event teams have equal points, ties are used as the first tiebreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cammy Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 2 minutes ago, jmahyoung said: Yeah well... I suppose there is another solution here. Winner gets 2 points. Loser gets 0. Tie gets 0. However, ties are still added up in the standings. In the event teams have equal points, ties are used as the first tiebreaker. that would work, although probably wouldn't be popular with the teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 4 hours ago, jmahyoung said: Yeah well... I suppose there is another solution here. Winner gets 2 points. Loser gets 0. Tie gets 0. However, ties are still added up in the standings. In the event teams have equal points, ties are used as the first tiebreaker. Tie gets 0? Then you are still faced with games not being the same point value, as some games will end in a tie. Not that it matters, more separation means lower renevue for teams in non-traditional markets who have bad seasons, the NHL wants most teams to be in the hunt as long as possible in order to keep fan interest up. If it's clear that a Florida or Arizona team is out by January, attendance would drop even lower, ( if thats even possible). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Mustapha said: Tie gets 0? Then you are still faced with games not being the same point value, as some games will end in a tie. Not that it matters, more separation means lower renevue for teams in non-traditional markets who have bad seasons, the NHL wants most teams to be in the hunt as long as possible in order to keep fan interest up. If it's clear that a Florida or Arizona team is out by January, attendance would drop even lower, ( if thats even possible). Not if you still include O/T and the S/O until there is a winner. If they eliminated those (which they aren't going to), it would make sense to return to 2 points to the winner or 1 each to the teams in a tie (2 total points awarded for each game). The whole 2/3 point scoring was, if I remember correctly, simply a way to make it look like there is more parity that reality. So, a team that loses a lot in O/T or shoot outs doesn't trail the standings by as much, making it look like they are more competitive than they really are (so fans continue to support teams that look like they have a shot at making the playoffs when they really don't simply as their point total is artificially elevated). Apologies if stating the obvious for some. I think, though, that after how ever many years of it, they aren't really fooling anyone, and fans know that if their team is say 10 points out in February, they are done, even if they don't fall that much further back due to "loser points". Time to go back to simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Doubt anything on that front changes any time soon, the NHL probably loves it's artificial parity. Wouldn't mind a change at all though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt_T83 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 On 1/20/2016 at 2:25 AM, goblix said: Would it be more interesting to give 3 points to regulation win, 2 points for OT // Shootout win and 1 point for OT loss This is how every sensible sports league does it. Edit: Although I do believe that some leagues have 3 points for regulation win, and then only 1 point each for a draw... which is even better, because that encourages teams to push for the win in regulation. Although I like the idea of 3 points regulation win, 2 points for OT/SO win, and 1 point for OT/SO loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 On January 20, 2016 at 11:31 PM, goblix said: fair opinion.. this will never happen anyways, the NHL loves it's parity and these loser points help clump the teams together Actually it was introduced to bring more excitement for the fans. The first couple years overtime was great hockey... Then coaches figured out how not to lose was better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comet Fan 0727 Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 On January 20, 2016 at 3:17 AM, coastal.view said: not sure about the 10 minute overtime but i could see a rule that says any game tied at the 10 minute mark of the 3rd period will revert to 4 on 4 for the next 5 minutes and then 3 on 3 for the final 5 minutes that would unclog some tied games I would love to see 4 on 4 during the last 5 minutes of the 3rd period, tied game or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boddy604 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Loser points keep more teams in the running which creates more people on a national level watching which creates more money for the NHL. It's not changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.