Ghostsof1915 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Why are we rewarding teams just because it goes to a shoot out? A loss is a loss is a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 53 minutes ago, VancouverishCanucker said: 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! No, they don't. Losing teams should get nothing. I am okay with teams playing to a draw and getting one each after regulation. As it is now, and as the system the NHL is moving towards, it's all a big sideshow. That being said, if the NHL wants to keep the 5 minute OT and the teams can't decide the game after that, then you punish the loser. It will ensure that both sides try their hardest to get some points during the OT rather than chance getting no points in the shoot out. I'd also go back to 5 v 5 in the 5 minute OT. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahyoung Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Or you could simply do away with the points system altogether. Most wins becomes the first criteria for playoff position. Most ties becomes the second criteria for playoff position. After that the same criteria as exist now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 Here is a hint as to why there is this dumb system; NFL football utilizes a win percentage as a part of there regular stats. MLB utilizes win percentage as well But in both of those systems if your team is .500, it not quite a losing team. In the NHL .500 means right around the bottom 6 to 8 out of 30, but still not a loser so, it is easier to suck the uninitiated into buying tickets. The same with "game management" getting game scores "close", generally the losing team appears to get timely PP time. The extra point is strictly for sales but the flip side is that playoff teams are generally decided by the end of November because it is so hard to gain 10 points, the team being chased would have to lose 10 without a pity point and the chasing team needs 10 wins in a row or about 1/8th or 12.5% of the season. The point gap becomes games per point differential wins vs out right loses, even 5 pity points increases number of wins and extra games just to catch up. The schedule doesn't help either, the Nucks are at game 49, 26 teams have games in hand, hence the current standings are a red herring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks1527 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I wouldn't mind seeing the league adopt international hockey points standings 3 for a win, 2 for ot or shootout win, 1 for loss in ot or shootout, and 0 for loss. Would eliminate teams playing it safe to get it to overtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 58 minutes ago, Canucks1527 said: I wouldn't mind seeing the league adopt international hockey points standings 3 for a win, 2 for ot or shootout win, 1 for loss in ot or shootout, and 0 for loss. Would eliminate teams playing it safe to get it to overtime. Why not just simple: 2 points for win, 0 for loss regardless of regulation, overtime, or shoot out. That way there is clear motivation to win at any point in the game, and the standings would be clear. The only reason to not, would be if the games were allowed to end in a tie (hence two points being split). No matter what scenario, 3 points don't split accross two teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Tannen Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Canucks1527 said: I wouldn't mind seeing the league adopt international hockey points standings 3 for a win, 2 for ot or shootout win, 1 for loss in ot or shootout, and 0 for loss. Would eliminate teams playing it safe to get it to overtime. Makes the most sense to me. It would mean all games are worth the same number of points, there's incentive to win in regulation and teams that manage to tie would still get a point but it'd be worth a third of what it is at the moment (kinda). I wouldn't mind just ending games as a tie, but the NHL are never going to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said: Makes the most sense to me. It would mean all games are worth the same number of points, there's incentive to win in regulation and teams that manage to tie would still get a point but it'd be worth a third of what it is at the moment (kinda). I wouldn't mind just ending games as a tie, but the NHL are never going to do that. Great profile pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortankin Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 21 hours ago, Canucklehead73 said: 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 If that were the case there wouldn't be a point system lol. It would be based off wins only like the NBA, MLB, and NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortankin Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Here is how i would make it. Regulation win = 3pts Regulation loss = 0pts OT win = 2pts OT loss = 1pt Tie = 1pt NO SHOOTOUT!!! I dont even get excited for penalty shots anymore because of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead73 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 11 hours ago, McHortanen said: If that were the case there wouldn't be a point system lol. It would be based off wins only like the NBA, MLB, and NFL. Well that's pretty much my point anyways, true enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverishCanucker Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 On 1/25/2016 at 0:52 PM, Gollumpus said: No, they don't. Losing teams should get nothing. I am okay with teams playing to a draw and getting one each after regulation. As it is now, and as the system the NHL is moving towards, it's all a big sideshow. That being said, if the NHL wants to keep the 5 minute OT and the teams can't decide the game after that, then you punish the loser. It will ensure that both sides try their hardest to get some points during the OT rather than chance getting no points in the shoot out. I'd also go back to 5 v 5 in the 5 minute OT. regards, G. Yes, they DO DESERVE a point for playing past regulation time. They work their hardest to avoid losing in the given TIME LIMIT. Your words are pathetic for OT to SO Games. They Must and Always will get AWARDED 1 Point for losing on the outside of Regulation Time. They have got to try hard enough to punish the loser in Regulation Time or else the winner must get punished for not doing their best and give 1 point to the loser while they still get the 2 points for all extended games. It is very RUDE to have no points for the loser past regulation time. Doing it the way your suggesting would mean there is no such thing called A POINT STREAK but only a Winning Streak or a Losing Streak Exists. So hear my words Friend: Your Point System is NEVER happening at all. Period! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Tannen Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 11 hours ago, VancouverishCanucker said: Yes, they DO DESERVE a point for playing past regulation time. They work their hardest to avoid losing in the given TIME LIMIT. Your words are pathetic for OT to SO Games. They Must and Always will get AWARDED 1 Point for losing on the outside of Regulation Time. They have got to try hard enough to punish the loser in Regulation Time or else the winner must get punished for not doing their best and give 1 point to the loser while they still get the 2 points for all extended games. It is very RUDE to have no points for the loser past regulation time. Doing it the way your suggesting would mean there is no such thing called A POINT STREAK but only a Winning Streak or a Losing Streak Exists. So hear my words Friend: Your Point System is NEVER happening at all. Period! Chill dude, you'll give yourself a hernia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 On 25/01/2016 at 3:16 PM, Canucks1527 said: I wouldn't mind seeing the league adopt international hockey points standings 3 for a win, 2 for ot or shootout win, 1 for loss in ot or shootout, and 0 for loss. Would eliminate teams playing it safe to get it to overtime. it's already too complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hortankin Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 On 25/01/2016 at 7:16 PM, Canucks1527 said: I wouldn't mind seeing the league adopt international hockey points standings 3 for a win, 2 for ot or shootout win, 1 for loss in ot or shootout, and 0 for loss. Would eliminate teams playing it safe to get it to overtime. This is exactly what i suggested but i didnt realize it was the international rules lol. Well except for the shootout. I suggested bring back ties and getting rid of the shootout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1970 and beyond Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 On 1/25/2016 at 10:54 PM, Tiger-Hearted 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. Exactly. Win is a win, loss is a loss and a tie is a tie. A hockey game lasts 60 mins, that's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 On 1/27/2016 at 1:06 AM, VancouverishCanucker said: Yes, they DO DESERVE a point for playing past regulation time. They work their hardest to avoid losing in the given TIME LIMIT. Your words are pathetic for OT to SO Games. They Must and Always will get AWARDED 1 Point for losing on the outside of Regulation Time. They have got to try hard enough to punish the loser in Regulation Time or else the winner must get punished for not doing their best and give 1 point to the loser while they still get the 2 points for all extended games. It is very RUDE to have no points for the loser past regulation time. Doing it the way your suggesting would mean there is no such thing called A POINT STREAK but only a Winning Streak or a Losing Streak Exists. So hear my words Friend: Your Point System is NEVER happening at all. Period! "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." - Will Munny Once upon a time, the NHL had 10 minute OT's. Early in the 1942 season, the NHL decided to end regular season OT, in consideration of WW2 travel restrictions. The last regular season OT game (until 1983) was on November 10, between Chicago and New York, New York being the winner (5-3). (The score appears to be correct, and this suggests that there was no sudden death aspect to these OT games. Perhaps all current day, regular season OT games, should be for a full 5 minutes?) Going into that game, Chicago had a record of 1-0-1, for 3 points. After the game, Chicago had a record of 1-1-1, for 3 points. What's missing there? What you claim "...Must and Always will get AWARDED..." appears to be something which was not always awarded. Perhaps it was a ruder time. I have not been able to discover a single instance of "loser points" being awarded from this era. If you were still tied after the 10 minute OT, you got a point. If you lost after OT, you lost. My view is that points will be awarded as the NHL decides they want them to be awarded. "Loser points" are currently being handed out because the league had to pacify the owners of bottom feeder franchises, and to keep up the appearance of the NHL being competitive. If someone came forward with a business plan which showed the owners that they could make more money by eliminating 5 minute OT periods, shoot outs and loser points, then they'd all be gone. It's a circus. Otherwise, there appear to be inconsistencies in your position. You start with "regulation time" not capitalized, but later go with "Regulation Time". "TIME LIMIT", "AWARDED", "RUDE" and "NEVER" should be bolded, no? regards, D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dumb Nuck Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 option 3: 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT/shootout win and 1 point for OT/shootout loss. option 2: 2 points for any win, 0 points for any loss. option 3: no shootout, just 3 on 3 OT, winner takes all. How long could a 3 on 3 really last if both teams are going for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nd1989 Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 ^^Personally i like either no loser points, or a 3 points per regulation win 2 per OT win with the OT loser getting 1. Atleast that way all nhl games are worth the same amount of points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverishCanucker Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 5 hours ago, Gollumpus said: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." - Will Munny Once upon a time, the NHL had 10 minute OT's. Early in the 1942 season, the NHL decided to end regular season OT, in consideration of WW2 travel restrictions. The last regular season OT game (until 1983) was on November 10, between Chicago and New York, New York being the winner (5-3). (The score appears to be correct, and this suggests that there was no sudden death aspect to these OT games. Perhaps all current day, regular season OT games, should be for a full 5 minutes?) Going into that game, Chicago had a record of 1-0-1, for 3 points. After the game, Chicago had a record of 1-1-1, for 3 points. What's missing there? What you claim "...Must and Always will get AWARDED..." appears to be something which was not always awarded. Perhaps it was a ruder time. I have not been able to discover a single instance of "loser points" being awarded from this era. If you were still tied after the 10 minute OT, you got a point. If you lost after OT, you lost. My view is that points will be awarded as the NHL decides they want them to be awarded. "Loser points" are currently being handed out because the league had to pacify the owners of bottom feeder franchises, and to keep up the appearance of the NHL being competitive. If someone came forward with a business plan which showed the owners that they could make more money by eliminating 5 minute OT periods, shoot outs and loser points, then they'd all be gone. It's a circus. Otherwise, there appear to be inconsistencies in your position. You start with "regulation time" not capitalized, but later go with "Regulation Time". "TIME LIMIT", "AWARDED", "RUDE" and "NEVER" should be bolded, no? regards, D. Hi Canucks Fan!!! I am sorry if I sounded aggressive over you. You can forgive me or not but thanks for telling me about the original era that has started out before the NHL has decided to move onto the current one that is in the middle of right now! I would like to be honest, I never have lived through any other era that has existed before this one! In my opinion, ties are boring, and all other eras are not the best idea for winners and losers anymore. The word "Deserve" has to exist for 3-on-3 OT and Shoot-Out games because DESERVE has got something to do with it if games are tied at the end of Regulation Time. The Canucks really do deserve 1 point for losing in the 5-minute Overtime Period and Shoot-Out Games. I like the way they are doing the current point system right now! Although it would be nice to have 3 points for a Regulation Win, 2 for a 3-on-3 OT or Shoot-Out Win, 1 for a 3-on-3 OT or Shoot-Out Loss and 0 for a Regulation Loss! All I believe what you're saying is the winners have to take off 1 point of theirs for making it to a Shoot-Out because Shoot-Outs are so boring to you or could be asking yourself why should Winners be very kind to the losers by giving them a point in the Shoot-Out when of course they don't really need to? On the other hand, thanks for giving out your Opinion! I understand that a record of 1-0-1 or 1-1-1 is the same thing as having 3 points because I don't believe I said anything about losers getting awarded in Regulation games if NOT tied at the end of regulation. When you said Chicago has lost to New York 5 - 3, are you saying it is the New York Islanders or is it the New York Rangers? I would like an honest answer! Just to remind you, if you want to know about my 5 point system then just let me know. Thanks! Regards, CL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.