Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Abolishing the Loser Point

Rate this topic


seeteesee
 Share

Recommended Posts

What can a fan do to impact current league rules? 

 

I for one am sick of the loser point. It creates unnecessary parity in the standings and diminishes the credit of a regulation win. It allows teams to play it safe at the end of the third, and leads to more games being decided by a shootout. 

 

I have scoured the internet via google, and I'm not the only person hating on the "loser point." There is journalists and sport analysts, that share my opinion. Yet our voices are not heard.

 

What's a fan to do? 

 

My top overtime rectification is simply to have any game going into overtime worth 1 point, winner takes all. This would make hockey competative until the final whistle in the 3rd period. Which I believe would lead us to having less games settled by a shootout and also has the added benefit of maintaining the integrity of old team point records.

 

Some people suggest making regulation wins worth 3 points, OT wins worth 2, OT loss worth 1 and a regulation loss worth 0. My issue with this point method is it does jeapordize previous record point totals. 

 

Anyone else have any other ideas on how to eliminate the loser point? 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real impact fans have is actually the biggest one--cut off revenue sources. 

 

Regardless, I personally like the idea of a 3-point system that rewards finishing games in OT or even in regulation. An argument against it I've heard is that it messes up the records, but we've already done that by adding the overtimes in the early 80s, the loser point in around 2000 and shootout in 2005. I didn't realize how much these changes affected teams point totals until I took an in-depth look at Tampa's season last year in comparison to other great teams and realized how many extra points they were getting. Even the wins totals are more inflated these days than back in the old days.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they can't play until someone wins, like the playoffs. Would be more bang for the buck for fans going to see a game, and suddenly be treated to an extra, very exciting frame or two. Winner gets the points. Loser learns a lesson.

 

1st OT - 20 minutes 4 on 4 (would probably never go beyond this frame)

2nd OT - 5 minutes 3 on 3 (but if it did, it would be very exciting)

3rd OT - 5 minutes 2 on 2

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, seeteesee said:

 

 

My top overtime rectification is simply to have any game going into overtime worth 1 point, winner takes all. This would make hockey competative until the final whistle in the 3rd period. Which I believe would lead us to having less games settled by a shootout and also has the added benefit of maintaining the integrity of old team point records.

 

Some people suggest making regulation wins worth 3 points, OT wins worth 2, OT loss worth 1 and a regulation loss worth 0. My issue with this point method is it does jeapordize previous record point totals. 

 

Anyone else have any other ideas on how to eliminate the loser point? 

Making an OT game worth only 1 point would also jeapordize future analysis of historical teams by points earned by making overall league point totals lower than before the change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Where's Wellwood said:

Making an OT game worth only 1 point would also jeapordize future analysis of historical teams by points earned by making overall league point totals lower than before the change

Yes and no,

Yes it isnt a perfect system. But it doesn't impact it as much as the 3 point system does. Afterall the previous system used to be split points in the event of a tie, or winner of the overtime took both points. I feel point totals would stay similar to that of the 90s. 

 

All in all we would see a lot less overtime. Teams would be keeping the tempo high to secure 2 points in regulation. No more slacking for the loser point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

43 minutes ago, seeteesee said:

I for one am sick of the loser point. It creates unnecessary parity in the standings and diminishes the credit of a regulation win. It allows teams to play it safe at the end of the third, and leads to more games being decided by a shootout. 

Don't you realize that parity is a huge goal for the league?  Parity keeps things competitive late in the season, in an attempt to make more games meaningful late in the season.  The league has done a lot to bring more parity: Salary cap, Revenue sharing come to mind, and I'm sure there are others.

 

Also, the more parity there is, the more "competitive" teams there are, the easier it is to expand the league, and ultimately... the more money the league makes.  

 

I share some of your concerns with the current system, but there is no way this will change in a direction you and many others would like.  I honestly don't see the current flawed system being enough of an influence for the majority of fans and future fans to turn away from the game.

 

28 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

I don't understand why they can't play until someone wins, like the playoffs. Would be more bang for the buck for fans going to see a game, and suddenly be treated to an extra, very exciting frame or two. Winner gets the points. Loser learns a lesson.

 

1st OT - 20 minutes 4 on 4 (would probably never go beyond this frame)

2nd OT - 5 minutes 3 on 3 (but if it did, it would be very exciting)

3rd OT - 5 minutes 2 on 2

I strongly doubt the NHLPA will accept this.  The wear and tear on players would add up, leading to more injuries, and the league wouldn't like that, as the injuries would more likely be on better players... the ones logging more OT time.  Imagine this happening on both games of a back to back.  The team would be gassed.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

I don't understand why they can't play until someone wins, like the playoffs. Would be more bang for the buck for fans going to see a game, and suddenly be treated to an extra, very exciting frame or two. Winner gets the points. Loser learns a lesson.

 

1st OT - 20 minutes 4 on 4 (would probably never go beyond this frame)

2nd OT - 5 minutes 3 on 3 (but if it did, it would be very exciting)

3rd OT - 5 minutes 2 on 2

 

 

HOw would you feel if Vancouver lost in tripple overtime on Saturday then played in NY at noon on Sunday?

how would you fell if they missed their plane and spent the night in the airport?

 

I agree with the OP that the OT games should be worth less. The Reg win = 2 pts,  OT/shoot out win = 1 would be way better than it is now .

 

I find it funny that "load management" became such a bad thing, but "Managing your loses" is acceptable. Manage your loss = wrack up loser points.

I always find it funny when the announcer says team X is going to try to "get something out of this game"  as if to say " they will take the single point happily and go home", if you get to overtime, you have a 50/50 at taking 2 points, but not 'both' because there is now 3.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

I don't understand why they can't play until someone wins, like the playoffs. Would be more bang for the buck for fans going to see a game, and suddenly be treated to an extra, very exciting frame or two. Winner gets the points. Loser learns a lesson.

 

1st OT - 20 minutes 4 on 4 (would probably never go beyond this frame)

2nd OT - 5 minutes 3 on 3 (but if it did, it would be very exciting)

3rd OT - 5 minutes 2 on 2

 

 

As other posters already pointed out, the wear and tear of having to play "playoff overtime" over 82 games is almost bordering on cruel and unusual punishment, but I feel like a single 7-10 minute 3-on-3 OT would be more than enough time to get a winner. Too often I see a player who looks to be going on a breakaway, or a 2 or 3-on-1, only to run out of time. The OT would likely be over before they'd have cleaned the ice, and started the shootout anyway.

 

 Get rid of the shootout/OTL point, game over after the OT.  W- 2p, T- 1p, L- 0p.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Best and simplest adjustment would be to bring back the tie and eliminate the shootout.  

Shootouts were awesome for the first two seasons but everybody is very tired of them by now.  

shootouts are a terrible way to end a team game. I'd prefer they just run 3 on 3 until someone scores. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

record book issues should be ignored

anyone can compare various eras simply by making mathematical adjustments

 

the record book has been continually tainted anyway

rapid expansion made it easier for a while to score goals/assists

the league schedule was also expanded in the past to add many more games resulting in higher player point totals

 

i hate the loser point

but it is here to stay

 

i hate even more that the goalie stats are especially skewed by this ot loss event

they get credit for the win in ot

but an ot loss is simply ignored and not added to their record

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Not a fan either. By the current standards (Equal points to games played)  there are only 6 teams in the league below 500. But if you go by straight wins and loses there are 13 teams below 500. It feels like the equivalent of elementary schools participation trophies, which are also a terrible idea. 

Edited by You Mad Bro?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mikeyboy440 said:

Record books don't even matter anymore. The game is always changing. 3 point games are the way to go, period.

yah even the goalie stats are bunk now.. guys like Flower, Lou & Henrik's win totals are all inflated by overtime / shootouts. who cares? the game is evolving, figure it out & move on.. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way to eliminate the loser point would be to buy more than half of the NHL teams and then force through the rule change.  The owners love the system as it artificially keeps more teams mathematically in the playoff race longer.

 

Rant all you want, it's never going to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a fan of the loser point but I really don't see the league moving off their need for false parity.

 

I have a couple of out of the box proposals

1) Any game that's tied in the 3rd period and is coached in such a manner as to nurse an OT point results in a one game suspension for the offending coach(es).

2) Betman must do 10 push ups for every shot taken in a shootout. He may opt out of the push ups in exchange for a wedgie and a 10 second noogie from John Scott.

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or simpler.

A loss is a loss. 0 points regardless of when it happens.

1 point for an overtime win. 

2 points for a win in regulation.

 

That way teams are encouraged to finish in regulation. Instead of overtime. Rewarding 1 point just to get to overtime is why points standings are so out of kilter. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...