He created a niche, which is great! It was needed for hockey fans. To think that people actually come here for rumors or internal hockey dealings is laughable. I personally have made some friends with people Ive actually met from this site, We have sat down and broken bread, many times. Id like to think that is more likely to happen then Ek actually getting a rumor correct
- corduroy

The point of a rumor site is not to get them right. If you're judging it by how much of it actually turns out right, then you aren't getting it.

Huh??. A loss in regulation or a loss in overtime or a loss in a shootout is what was said three times... A loss. You win or you lose. There should be no such thing as a tie. Maybe I'm a bit harsh but I do like the 2-2-1.... Sorry just my opinion lol
- Buck Norris

I don't think you got what I was saying. That was in reply to a suggestion that a team who loses in OT or the shootout should get zero points.

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.
- Crisp

Dont give incentive to play boring. If your ties after reg fins. You got 5 to 10 mins (I like 5) to go for it. You need that extra point no matter who you are and playing 3 on 3 would be savage

I'd be for just getting rid of the loser point. You win or you lose. With ties gone it really shouldn't matter if you lose in regulation or a shootout. There shouldn't be much point to giving teams a pat on the back because they happened to lose the game past the 60 minute mark. When you had a tie then sure. Each team got a point and I can sort of get why you'd hand out a loser point there. But that age is over so might as well just simplify it. You win, 2 points. You lose, 0 points.

We know they won't change it of course. The league wants parity above all else. Whether it is real or an illusion they want the impression of tight races. But I'd be for the change if it ever happened.

What if the game just ended in a tie?
Both teams would get a point each.
- dmnted

What needs to be shown when teams tie at the end of regulation is that the team that gave up the tying goal lost 1 point (they had the potential of 2 points) and the team that got the tying goal earned 1 point (they had 0 points up to that point). Add a T+ and T- in the standings and use that as a tie breaker. The team with the most T+ points gets ranked higher. It encourages teams to continue to play for goals, so they have more than 1 goal leads late.

We use nr. 2 option in Sweden, hated it first , but it's actually good

You clearly have never watched hockey. Do you have any stats to show that games that are tied with 10 minutes left in the third end up tied by the end of the third. You say "That's exactly what they do" yet you provide zero evidence.

10 minutes of hockey is a (frank) ton of hockey. If you wanted to say something like "teams that are tied in the last two minutes of the game are less likely to take big risks to make offensive plays" then that would be more reasonable. But you still couldn't declare "that's exactly what they do" without even attempting to provide facts to back this up.

There is no point for losing. There is a point for being tied after 60 minutes of hockey - which precedes some super fun skills competition OT and shootout.

Let's start calling the loser point the hockey point because that is what it is. I like the current system. If a change is deemed necessary than it should be 3 for a reg win. And 2 for ot win, 1 for ot loss. exactly three points given per game....

But I'm in favor of the current system. It does not create false parity at all. Parity creates parity and parity is real.
- Njuice

https://sports-vice-com.c...loser-point-is-for-losers

The link above pretty much nails it but doesn't mention the 2-2-1 format. I just think that format would be better for the game. It's not perfect but would work well for the regular season. At least we have the post season right.

I would be in favor of changing the points format, but I would categorize the points for Wins in different ways.

I agree that regulation wins should carry a great amount of weight than overtime or shootout wins. I don't like the fact that teams that lose in overtime and/or shootouts should get any points.

My point breakdown would be as follows:
Regulation Win = 3 pts
Overtime Win = 2 pts
Shootout Win = 1 pt
Loss in any fashion = 0 pt

Teams that win in regulation should get rewarded.

It's not a loser point. Both teams get a point for the tie and then play a mini game for a bonus point.

They call it an OT or SO loss, but they don't get a point for that. Just for ending the game in a tie. The "winner" gets an extra one.
- BINGO!

Its a loser point.
The loser of the game gets 1point.
Its a loser point

Its a loser point.
The loser of the game gets 1point.
Its a loser point
- Fakepartofme

Yes. It is a loser point. Love hockey but can't defend it.

I would be in favor of changing the points format, but I would categorize the points for Wins in different ways.

I agree that regulation wins should carry a great amount of weight than overtime or shootout wins. I don't like the fact that teams that lose in overtime and/or shootouts should get any points.

My point breakdown would be as follows:
Regulation Win = 3 pts
Overtime Win = 2 pts
Shootout Win = 1 pt
Loss in any fashion = 0 pt

Teams that win in regulation should get rewarded.
- jrcortez25

If a team that wins in regulation should get rewarded, which puts an emphasis on regulation which I completely agree with. Why should a team that did not lose in regulation, get zero points?

This is bad and you should feel bad, Ek.

Everyone seems to forget why the loser point was implemented in the first place. With the old system, OT was boring as hell. Neither team wanted to walk away with nothing, so they played the 5 min OT in order to preserve the tie. Fans complained about how boring it was all the time.

If a team that wins in regulation should get rewarded, which puts an emphasis on regulation which I completely agree with. Why should a team that did not lose in regulation, get zero points?
- MJL

All other sports do not reward teams for losing. Why should the NHL reward a team that loses in overtime or shootout, with a point? It doesn't seem fair.

Top 8 in East make playoffs and Top 8 in West make playoffs irregardless of division. Lets start there.

Soccer does 3 for a win and 1 for a tie and catching up is extremely difficult this way. I say leave points as is and change the playoffs by getting rid of the division garbage.

Every game now ends with a winner and a loser. No need for a point system any longer.

This ain't soccer.

3 points for a regulation win.
2 points for an OT/SO win.
1 point for a OT/SO loss.

The only thing that would make sense if they were to ever change it, imo.

Yes, the point system is flawed. There is no denying that. It can make it nearly impossible for teams to make a late season push to secure a playoff spot. But, the most pressing issue at the moment is the playoff format itself. The wildcard format is a disaster. Too many good teams are being eliminated in the first round. The league is better when their best teams are successful. The old fashioned 1-8 system worked for years or a reason. Bring it back.

Having said that. Awarding a "loser point" actually makes the game worse. It can slow it down significantly How many times have you seen a team make a 3rd period comeback and then play it safe down the stretch to secure the single point? It happens all the time. Or, when a team at the lower end of the standings is tied with a much better team, and would consider a single point a victory. I see it often, and it can make for some pretty bland hockey

Top 8 in East make playoffs and Top 8 in West make playoffs irregardless of division. Lets start there.

Soccer does 3 for a win and 1 for a tie and catching up is extremely difficult this way. I say leave points as is and change the playoffs by getting rid of the division garbage.
- BlackhawkMike

I agree. The playoff format is not ideal.

I agree. The playoff format is not ideal.
- Mr_Rager

Yeah it is awful. I don't know anyone who says they like it more than the old format.

And since fans are the ones the league is afloat, they should listen to the fans and switch it back.

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

I like the creativity, but the best thing to do would be to just scrap the whole thing. The novelty had worn off by 2007. Continuous 3on3 is the way to go. As it is now, it's pretty rare for 3on3 to extend to a shootout. So the odds of a game dragging on for OT period after OT period are pretty slim. I bet only a handful of games would continue after 10 minutes of 3on3. The players would love it. More opportunity to score some GWG and pad their stats

All other sports do not reward teams for losing. Why should the NHL reward a team that loses in overtime or shootout, with a point? It doesn't seem fair.
- jrcortez25

What other sports change their game and remove players from the field or don't even play the game to decide a winner.? Does Basketball have a free throw contest to decide a winner? Does Football have a field goal kicking contest? How about baseball? Maybe a home run hitting contest?

YOU AREN'T GETTING IT!

What other sports change their game and remove players from the field or don't even play the game to decide a winner.? Does Basketball have a free throw contest to decide a winner? Does Football have a field goal kicking contest? How about baseball? Maybe a home run hitting contest?
- MJL

Who cares about what other sports do..