Drop points all together and go to winning percentage
- BuzzKiller

Drop the Shootout and replace it with moral victories. That way the Red Wings can win the Stanley Cup and draft Jack Hughes.

The game ends after regulation.

A tie is 1 point each.

Problem solved.
- Aetherial

Gary's owners won't like that...no beer or food sales for OT??

lol

Gary's owners won't like that...no beer or food sales for OT??

lol
- LordHumungous

Gary calls Ek every day. Ek calls him Gare.

Why not just get rid of points all together. You win you win, you lose you lose. Who cares when? The whole point of giving a point for it being a tie is a throwback to when there were ties. How many years has it been since ties actually existed? Win/loss and I bet there would be less games ending in ties at the end of regulation as there would be no incentive to it.

No to 3 pts

2 for a win in regulation
2 for a win in ot
1 for a win in a shootout

0 for a loss period.

What difference does that make? Do teams get partial wins for tie games? Otherwise you're just saying 2 for a win, 0 for any loss.
- Blue Clam

Gives a better representaion of where teams actually are mid season team a could have played 6 more games have 2 more wins thats 4 points higher then team b who has played 30 games with 18 wins vs a who had 36 games and 20 wins

There is no such thing as a loser point. That's the hockey point. Rewarded for sixty minutes of hockey.

The point awarded to the 3 on 3 ot or shootout winner would be the skills competition point. That stuff us entertaining but it's not hockey hockey

No to 3 pts

2 for a win in regulation
2 for a win in ot
1 for a win in a shootout

0 for a loss period.
- Jkuzzi

GARBAGE LIKE YOUR BRAIN.

3 points for the win
1 point each for a tie
And get rid of the gimmicks, meaning OT and the SO. It’s not hockey.

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


- mjones242

WTF Guys, does no one understand the point in OT is because of 3on3 and shootout? Teams get that point because the game is not played with regulation number of players. Thats why...period.

FIRST!!!








any habs rumours?!?










nuff said

I'm not sure the time line is accurate.(or if time line if the correct term).
The NHL first played 60 minutes, 2 point win, 1 each per tie.
The league believed they were not getting MORE new fans because of the ties and came up with 5v5 overtime. still only 2 points for a win. ZERO points for a loss. Still no shoot out.
A couple of years into this the GMs began female doging because they lost the point for the ties. ENTER THE LOSER POINT. Now the guys and team still got the point if tie after 60.
Next came the shoot out because the league does NOT want ties. New fan thing again.
The 3v3 is a result of shoot outs ending too many games. I have said from the beginning of the "loser point" that all games should be 3 point.
Won't happen. The league loves the fake parity. It gives the illusion of teams still being in the hunt til the end.

All of this is just silly now anyway. Screw winning percentage. With the advent of fancy stats, the score and goals are completely unnecessary. The only true metric is shot attempts. So we just award 2 points to the corsi winner each game. 2 points for the winner. Zero points for the loser. Could use, i dont know, maybe zone entries for the rare tie breaker. What could be more simple.

Go back to W-L-T format. OT is a 10 minute 4 v 4.

2 pts for a W, 1 for a tie, 0 for loss in OT/REG

no points for a loss in overtime, 1 point for a shoot out win, make teams work harder for the point, instead of "accepting" that if they grind it out, they still get a point

WTF Guys, does no one understand the point in OT is because of 3on3 and shootout? Teams get that point because the game is not played with regulation number of players. Thats why...period.
- gilmoure93

Thats actually a new thing, OT used to be 5 on 5

No to 3 pts

2 for a win in regulation
2 for a win in ot
1 for a win in a shootout

0 for a loss period.
- Jkuzzi

About time someone else supports the 2-2-1. Had this in a men's league season years ago. It was (frank)ing brilliant. Teams would go ape poop going for that extra point. It almost never went to a shoot out. The last 10-15 games of the season became playoff hockey, it was nuts. Not one (frank)ing boring game. Not one.

Get rid of the shootout, get rid of 3-on-3 overtime. Put the game back the way it was.

I’m old school. I hate the NFL’s current overtime rules, too.

keep regulation wins at 2pts and only give out the extra point if a team loses in a shoot-out. OT losses NO extra points

That’s what I’m talking about

Two points for a regulation win. One point for an overtime win. One point each if tied after overtime. No shoot out. No points if you lose in overtime. You get nothing. Good day sir!

I'm not sure the time line is accurate.(or if time line if the correct term).
The NHL first played 60 minutes, 2 point win, 1 each per tie.
The league believed they were not getting MORE new fans because of the ties and came up with 5v5 overtime. still only 2 points for a win. ZERO points for a loss. Still no shoot out.
A couple of years into this the GMs began female doging because they lost the point for the ties. ENTER THE LOSER POINT. Now the guys and team still got the point if tie after 60.
Next came the shoot out because the league does NOT want ties. New fan thing again.
The 3v3 is a result of shoot outs ending too many games. I have said from the beginning of the "loser point" that all games should be 3 point.
Won't happen. The league loves the fake parity. It gives the illusion of teams still being in the hunt til the end.

All of this is just silly now anyway. Screw winning percentage. With the advent of fancy stats, the score and goals are completely unnecessary. The only true metric is shot attempts. So we just award 2 points to the corsi winner each game. 2 points for the winner. Zero points for the loser. Could use, i dont know, maybe zone entries for the rare tie breaker. What could be more simple.
- jaws1955

I love it. No passing, no matter where on the ice you have the puck, just attempt a shot. There should actually be a deduction for scoring a goal. Such a low level event.

Make all games worth 3 points. I swear surrogates get sent out to the parking lot in the games to sign an agreement that no goals get scored until overtime starts.

3pts for a win. New playoff format 1 vs 8. No more video review on off side and goalie interferance. Fixes alot

Everyone's acting like 3v3 is a legitimate way to determine the winner of a game. It's not. Hockey is played 5v5. 3v3 is a tie game, 1 point each, 1 bonus point to the team who wins the bonus game.
- Blue Clam

Meh.. Hockey used to be 6v6 until the removed the rover position. And that "bonus game" you speak of? It was eliminated from game at one point only to be reinstated in '83.

The beautiful thing about hockey is that it is allowed to evolve and change with the times. The NHL is willing to experiment and tweak the game to see what works.

No to 3 pts

2 for a win in regulation
2 for a win in ot
1 for a win in a shootout

0 for a loss period.
- Jkuzzi

This has been suggested a few times now and I'm glad to see it getting more support. As much as some people hate 3v3 and/or the shootout I find them exciting enough for regular season and they provide a quick ending to the game which is a big reason why they were implemented. If anything maybe extend 3v3 up to 10 mins and shootouts will become very rare.