powerenforcer
Chicago Blackhawks |
|
 |
Location: Wheeling, IL Joined: 09.24.2009
|
|
|
No one gets a point for losing during team play.
2 points for a win, 1 point only if you lose in the shootout.
I am always surprised that so few people like shootouts. I love them. Only one game that I attended went to a shootout and it was exciting to see. On TV I love the long shootouts where they're running out of players. Love seeing both the individual skills of the shooter and the goalie's skills. Doesn't everyone like seeing penalty shots too? - ktsparks
One change I would love the league to impliment is allowing the team the choice to get the man advantage or get a penalty shot. |
|
coohill
Pittsburgh Penguins |
|
 |
Location: Louisville, CO Joined: 03.15.2007
|
|
|
No, I want 5on5 if its more than 5min.
3 points for a regulation win
2 for an over time win
1 for an over time loss
- Tom Dusome
Yep, you should not get all the possible standings points for tying a game then winning some 3-on-3 or shootout play. Use the above system.
This puts pressure on teams to win in regulation which is really what we're after. |
|
nyisles7
New York Islanders |
|
 |
Location: Wrong timing, NY Joined: 01.20.2009
|
|
|
Not no but Hell No!
Stop with the gimmicks. Give 3 points for a win. 1 point for a tie and no points for a loss.
What other sport changes the whole dynamics of the game to get a win. 3v3 is not hockey plain and simple. |
|
BINGO!
Carolina Hurricanes |
|
 |
Location: I'll always remember the last words my grandfather ever told me. He said, "A Truck!", SK Joined: 09.21.2009
|
|
|
Not no but Hell No!
Stop with the gimmicks. Give 3 points for a win. 1 point for a tie and no points for a loss.
What other sport changes the whole dynamics of the game to get a win. 3v3 is not hockey plain and simple. - nyisles7
Nobody wants a game to end in a tie. |
|
nyisles7
New York Islanders |
|
 |
Location: Wrong timing, NY Joined: 01.20.2009
|
|
|
Nobody wants a game to end in a tie. - BINGO!
If both teams play well and at the end of regulation time the game is tied. I have no problem with that outcome. (So there goes your “nobody”) For me it makes much more sense then giving the loser a point and or changing the whole strategy of the game just to have a winner. |
|
BINGO!
Carolina Hurricanes |
|
 |
Location: I'll always remember the last words my grandfather ever told me. He said, "A Truck!", SK Joined: 09.21.2009
|
|
|
If both teams play well and at the end of regulation time the game is tied. I have no problem with that outcome. (So there goes your “nobody”) For me it makes much more sense then giving the loser a point and or changing the whole strategy of the game just to have a winner. - nyisles7
It's still nobody. |
|
Cush29
Toronto Maple Leafs |
|
 |
Location: Who Owzzzzz da' Chiefs?, ON Joined: 12.22.2014
|
|
|
Nobody wants a game to end in a tie. - BINGO!
Nobody should want a team to get a point for losing.
Ties were fine from 1917 to 2004-2005 and the NHL survived.
|
|
Sven22
Detroit Red Wings |
|
 |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI Joined: 12.24.2007
|
|
|
Nobody wants a game to end in a tie. - BINGO!
With a single 20 minute 3-on-3 system you'd only have about ~1 game in the entire league per year actually go scoreless that long.
Then, pick your poison. That game can end in a tie, NFL style, or you can end it in a shootout. Either way you make both outcomes extremely rare or impossible, without requiring endless regular season OT. |
|
|
|
I’ll vote for it. So 1 point each for a tie? |
|
Blue Clam
St Louis Blues |
|
 |
Location: Ottawa, ON Joined: 07.16.2009
|
|
|
Nobody should want a team to get a point for losing.
Ties were fine from 1917 to 2004-2005 and the NHL survived. - Cush29
It's not the "loser point" that's the problem. The problem is forcing 2 points on a team after a tie. Winning a 3v3 or shootout shouldn't have the same value as a regulation win. |
|