Disagree, I'm gonna love seeing Tampa and Boston done after round 2! 😁
- Zezel

Or Toronto....

Tampa has a 13 point lead over the next best team in the NHL. How many points would it be without this inflated system?

stop calling it a loser point, it's the opposite. it's a bonus point to the winner of the sideshow.

Okay, so I've floated this alternative out for nearly 10 years, which I think is better than any of your choices. Keep an open mind. The problem is teams just sit back and wait to get 1 point and take their chances in overtime/ shootout, particularly in cross conference games. So to fix this, make all games worth 5 points! It breaks down like this: win in regulation and you get 5 points, loser gets 0. Win in overtime you get 4 points and loser gets 1 point. Win in a shootout you get 3 points, loser gets 2 points.

By doing this more teams will push to win in regulation, as it is more beneficial than an ot/ shootout win. This would make it much more likely that a team(s) behind in the standings can make up ground, just have to be more aggressive and try to win in regulation. This could minimize the situation of teams sitting back to ensure taking at least 1 point out of games.

This would also create new strategies for teams to decide if they really need the extra point(s), you could see goalies being pulled in tie games late in regulation, for teams needing extra points desperately.

I truly believe this rewards the stronger teams and the teams with more "balls". I'm sure people are going to moan about the astronomical point totals, but I believe that ship sailed when they introduced 3 point games anyway. This at least rewards the teams more equitably.

Not going to happen until Bettman is out.
His fake "parity" is all that matters.

Not sure I like the 3 points for a regulation win idea. I definitely hate the loser point, it has to be one of the worst rules in sports. Professional teams should never be given incentive to not play to win and that's exactly what the loser point does.

Ties are kind of lame but would be a better resolution. Playing a whole extra period or more of OT would be way too much of a burden on teams in the regular season.

I say extend 3v3 or 4v4 OT a bit and the winner takes 2 points, loser gets nothing. If it goes to a shootout the winner only gets 1 point. That gives teams much more incentive to win in regulation and OT while eliminating 3 point games (loser points) and creating 1 point games for shootouts.

Or Toronto....
- geta02it

No

2pts per game

2 pts to winner if no OT

If OT

.5 pats goes to both teams if goes to OT

1 more point to winner

So 1.5 pts to winner and .5 to loser

It may help with tie breakers and keep the system about the same meaning the winner is will get punished for not winning in regulation and the loser only gets .5 pts....which will help them less.....putting more focus on wins in regulation, and if you to overtime you get less.....it basically the same as the 3 OT game but with .5 will help the tie breaker....somebody good numbers can look back and do some back testing to see if indeed this could help.

Not sure I like the 3 points for a regulation win idea. I definitely hate the loser point, it has to be one of the worst rules in sports. Professional teams should never be given incentive to not play to win and that's exactly what the loser point does.

Ties are kind of lame but would be a better resolution. Playing a whole extra period or more of OT would be way too much of a burden on teams in the regular season.

I say extend 3v3 or 4v4 OT a bit and the winner takes 2 points, loser gets nothing. If it goes to a shootout the winner only gets 1 point. That gives teams much more incentive to win in regulation and OT while eliminating 3 point games (loser points) and creating 1 point games for shootouts.
- Crisp

Soccer leagues have the 3 points for a win system for years, and it works great!

The way it is, flat out sucks!

1) I’d go with the 3pt regulation win to keep more teams with a chance after the All Star break.
2) Eliminate the shootout! Keep it a TEAM game! The game is over after OT!
3) Elimate the Instigator rule. Make the cheap shot artists pay for their misdeeds. If the refs miss a cheap shot, the players won’t.
4) Go back to the 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 format of old.
5) Go back to 6 divisional games per year! Reducing out of conference games is easy. Just play once in rotating years. Fans of their respective teams would much rather see them play their rivals a lot more than a team from across the country. Tickets for those games would be valuable as well. That is good for the game on both the league and ticket holder levels.

These changes will make the game more exciting, increase the intensity, and bring back the rivalries that existed 15-20 years ago. I would give up my Saturday to watch the Flyers play Rangers, or Avs versus Red Wings. Sadly, not today.

So when do I become the Commish?

I never understood getting a point for losing.

2pts per game

2 pts to winner if no OT

If OT

.5 pats goes to both teams if goes to OT

1 more point to winner

So 1.5 pts to winner and .5 to loser

It may help with tie breakers and keep the system about the same meaning the winner is will get punished for not winning in regulation and the loser only gets .5 pts....which will help them less.....putting more focus on wins in regulation, and if you to overtime you get less.....it basically the same as the 3 OT game but with .5 will help the tie breaker....somebody good numbers can look back and do some back testing to see if indeed this could help.
- huks99

Horrible, that's the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

Horrible, that's the most asinine thing I have ever heard.
- DrunkFan

Why?

Soccer leagues have the 3 points for a win system for years, and it works great!
- StargateSG1

Soccer also can determine championships with penalty kicks which is the equivalent of the Stanley Cup being won in a shootout. That's just one example of a soccer rule that would be horrible for the NHL. I'm not a soccer hater either.

If you really want to make a change to something, move the shootout to the beginning of the game. I know it sounds crazy but it actually happened. The Hockey News did an article about how a league (can’t remember which one) had the shootout before each game. If the game wasn’t tied at the end of the game, then the results of the shootout meant nothing. However, if the game was tied, it would still go to OT like normal. What really changed was the mentality of the OT. If nobody scored in OT, the shootout was already decided and therefore the game was decided. It gave each game a playoff feel and both teams, coaches and fans from both sides said the end of the game and OT was crazy intense, like a game 7. For whatever reason they cancelled it and moved the shootout back but it’s an idea that I would fully support. Like I said, but if a crazy idea but could be very exciting.
- James-TFS

This is very intriguing. But would we see an increase in pulled groin muscles by goalies?

We don’t need no stinkin’ points. Why not eliminate them completely and go by win/loss records like football or use winning % and implement the appropriate tie breakers?

Regulation/OT win = 2 points
Shootout win = 1 point
Loss = 0 points

If they want to create rivalries, why not have top seeded teams choose who they play from the rest of the playoff teams?

1 gets first choice
2 gets second choice and so on.
So Tampa finishes first. They get the right to choose from 2-8 who they want to play. Imagine the rivalries that could create?

Going to a 3 points for a win system would destroy the parity the NHL has worked hard to create. Too many teams still believe they have a shot playoffs near the deadline because of the 3 point games. These teams don’t have a real shot winning the cup but the point system they have now keeps the excitement level up for the players, teams and for the fans.

If you really want to make a change to something, move the shootout to the beginning of the game. I know it sounds crazy but it actually happened. The Hockey News did an article about how a league (can’t remember which one) had the shootout before each game. If the game wasn’t tied at the end of the game, then the results of the shootout meant nothing. However, if the game was tied, it would still go to OT like normal. What really changed was the mentality of the OT. If nobody scored in OT, the shootout was already decided and therefore the game was decided. It gave each game a playoff feel and both teams, coaches and fans from both sides said the end of the game and OT was crazy intense, like a game 7. For whatever reason they cancelled it and moved the shootout back but it’s an idea that I would fully support. Like I said, but if a crazy idea but could be very exciting.
- James-TFS

Why wouldn't the team who won the shootout just sit back and play cautiously and just defend in OT, or skate around with the open ice in 3 on 3 in a keep away action and not even try to score? They know if they run out the clock, they win the game?

Only thing(s) I would be satisfied with:

1) 3 points for a win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for OT loss

Like someone mentioned, get rid of the stupid shootout and make it continuous OT if they must have a winner. The shootout is a disgrace to the game and sports. It has been said before, but it is like having a field goal kicking contest in an NFL game to determine a winner.

2) 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie. No winner point.
- Glak18

I agree that all games should be worth the same amount of points. The season is way too long including the playoffs to play continuous OT. They won't get rid of the shootout, it's way too popular.

Soccer also can determine championships with penalty kicks which is the equivalent of the Stanley Cup being won in a shootout. That's just one example of a soccer rule that would be horrible for the NHL. I'm not a soccer hater either.
- Crisp

How they decide the winner after 120 minutes of play is irrelevant.

Horrible, that's the most asinine thing I have ever heard.
- DrunkFan

I like it. You're just drunk.

Exactly What the other guy said Their should only be one winner , No SO , Hockey is a team sport Play 4 on 4 for 5 mins then 3 on 3 until someone wins winner takes all . Bottom line , I also agree 100% with taking out the trapezoid That is just STUPID!!!!

How about 4. Get rid of the shootout completely.

Play 3 on 3 until there's a winner. Winner takes all. No points for losing,and no more individual skills competition to resolve a team game.
- leafsfann

PLUS ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If they want to create rivalries, why not have top seeded teams choose who they play from the rest of the playoff teams?

1 gets first choice
2 gets second choice and so on.
So Tampa finishes first. They get the right to choose from 2-8 who they want to play. Imagine the rivalries that could create?
- Paytheplayer

Team were given a point for a regulation tie.

It is a bonus point
- Aetherial

"Teams were never given a point if they lost in OT in the past... so why now?"