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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.