agreed

how hard is it to understand
2 = win
1 = shootout win
0 = loss
- Crimsoninja

Kids

Actually, it could even be simpler - 2 points for a win in regulation or OT and 1 point for a shootout win.

Only rewards winning and avoids the 3 point game debate.

Kids
- tantrum4

They make the best stew. Adults are too sinewy. Nothing beats, roasting up the neighborhood fat kid.

Actually, it could even be simpler - 2 points for a win in regulation or OT and 1 point for a shootout win.

Only rewards winning and avoids the 3 point game debate.
- miser

I think any team that incorporates gladiators into a pregame ceremony during the playoffs, should automatically be awarded an L in the series.

he only wants this because it makes philly look better in the standings. if it brought them down 2 or 3 spots he would be opposed to it

So you feel that the point system has opened the game up?

It was all rule changes that did this.

If I remember correctly, the game was DRASTICALLY changed 5 years ago, when they implemented the trapezoid, got rid of the 2 line pass, and redefined obstruction penalties.

The trap never went away, my friend.

Teams play this boring style now.

Tampa almost got to the finals using the trap (1-3-1), and Philly was reviled for exposing it blatantly in that one game.
- Climuster

It sounds to me like you haven't watched hockey very long. Yes this point system has opened the game up by quite a bit. Before you started watching, if games were close in the third period, teams would both sit back and play defense. No odd man rushes, no breakaways, nothing. No one wanted to give the opponent 2 points and end up with nothing. The same thing happened in OT before there was a shootout, neither team would take chances for that extra point because they didn't want to give it to their opponent and end up with nothing, so they both just sat back and let the time run out and settle for a tie. Nowadays you see lots of action in OT because teams are going for the EXTRA point, not 2 extra points. If they mess up and the other team scores, oh well they still get a point so it's not so bad. Trust me, the current system is a lot more exciting than it was previously. And anyway, there's no way GM's will want to get rid of the parity in the league you see now with most teams having a chance to make the playoffs right up until the end of March. It wasn't very exciting when the top 8 teams knew they were in in January, with maybe one extra team still having a shot at making it.

It sounds to me like you haven't watched hockey very long. Yes this point system has opened the game up by quite a bit. Before you started watching, if games were close in the third period, teams would both sit back and play defense. No odd man rushes, no breakaways, nothing. No one wanted to give the opponent 2 points and end up with nothing. The same thing happened in OT before there was a shootout, neither team would take chances for that extra point because they didn't want to give it to their opponent and end up with nothing, so they both just sat back and let the time run out and settle for a tie. Nowadays you see lots of action in OT because teams are going for the EXTRA point, not 2 extra points. If they mess up and the other team scores, oh well they still get a point so it's not so bad. Trust me, the current system is a lot more exciting than it was previously. And anyway, there's no way GM's will want to get rid of the parity in the league you see now with most teams having a chance to make the playoffs right up until the end of March. It wasn't very exciting when the top 8 teams knew they were in in January, with maybe one extra team still having a shot at making it.
- tantrum4

I have a hard time trusting you. You seem very deceitful and full of angst.

I don't think there is any difference in winning in OT over a SO to the point that you should earn different points so thats kind of silly.

I just think you should get 2 points for winning(regardless of how) and No points for losing (reguardless of how). A win is a win and a loss is a loss. Fans are still happy because it keeps the shootouts.

I don't see why winning one way or the other should matter or why going into OT makes the team who lost deserve a point.

I also don't like EK's suggestion. Doesn't make much logical sense and is more "cute" than realistic.

Keep it as is or;
Regulation win 3 points loss 1 point
Overtime win 2 points loss 0 points
Shutout win 1 point loss 0 points

Change OT to 8 mins of 4 on 4 and 4 min of 3 on 3.

Or keep it as is but make shootout win 1 point and no point for an OT loss.

Or just keep it as is.
- Chipd

....are you suggesting that losing in regulation is worth more than losing in a shootout?

the most exciting thing about the sport is the last week of the regular season, when teams are doing everything they can do get those points. if we used eklunds system we would have a clear cut playoff picture 10 games before the end of the season. leave it how it is, it makes everything much more exciting

It sounds to me like you haven't watched hockey very long. Yes this point system has opened the game up by quite a bit. Before you started watching, if games were close in the third period, teams would both sit back and play defense. No odd man rushes, no breakaways, nothing. No one wanted to give the opponent 2 points and end up with nothing. The same thing happened in OT before there was a shootout, neither team would take chances for that extra point because they didn't want to give it to their opponent and end up with nothing, so they both just sat back and let the time run out and settle for a tie. Nowadays you see lots of action in OT because teams are going for the EXTRA point, not 2 extra points. If they mess up and the other team scores, oh well they still get a point so it's not so bad. Trust me, the current system is a lot more exciting than it was previously. And anyway, there's no way GM's will want to get rid of the parity in the league you see now with most teams having a chance to make the playoffs right up until the end of March. It wasn't very exciting when the top 8 teams knew they were in in January, with maybe one extra team still having a shot at making it.
- tantrum4

Correct me if I`m wrong, but wasn`t the current point system implemented before the lockout?

The thing that changed was the mandatory SO, should a tie occur. The point system was the same. A game that went to OT had both teams awarded with a point.

The only thing that changed was the on ice rules, and the salary cap, which made life hell for the GMs of the league and made a level playing field for everyone other than MTL, TML, and a handful of others.

Also, they changed the rules for the play of the NJD, because they perfected the trap. (Damn Brodeur and his first pass!)

VERY BORING HOCKEY!

I don't think there is any difference in winning in OT over a SO to the point that you should earn different points so thats kind of silly.

I just think you should get 2 points for winning(regardless of how) and No points for losing (reguardless of how). A win is a win and a loss is a loss. Fans are still happy because it keeps the shootouts.

I don't see why winning one way or the other should matter or why going into OT makes the team who lost deserve a point.

I also don't like EK's suggestion. Doesn't make much logical sense and is more "cute" than realistic.
- Meeqsb

So why don`t we go by win percentage, and get rid of the points system altogether?

Here's an idea ...lets just leave the league alone and stop (frank)in around with it.
- keatondixon

This.

So why don`t we go by win percentage, and get rid of the points system altogether?
- Climuster

It would be X wins and Y losses and thats it. Which teams are good and which aren't would be more apparent. Look at the western conference, like 5 of the teams still in it have double digit OT losses. 3 point games are the only reason CAL,LA,MIN,ANA,PHO and FLA(in the east) even have a chance to make the playoffs

Eklund: The Simple System That Would Make the NHL Races 100% Better
- Eklund

First off Ek, you really need to be voted into the HHOF as a builder...Secondly, I agree with everything about your system except this:

2 pts regulation and OT win
1 point Shoot-out win

Ek, I don't think the NHL is ready for your changes. Look at how drastically that would change the standings! San Jose would be in 8th instead of 9th!!!! Could you imagine?!?!

It would be X wins and Y losses and thats it. Which teams are good and which aren't would be more apparent. Look at the western conference, like 5 of the teams still in it have double digit OT losses. 3 point games are the only reason CAL,LA,MIN,ANA,PHO and FLA(in the east) even have a chance to make the playoffs
- Meeqsb

Yes, but if the X chromosome was actually a Y, then what would we have on our hands?

Does BMO have a monopoly on sponsoring Canadian soccer teams in the MLS?

TFC:


Montreal:

I love it.

I am tired of teams being rewarded for a loss.

The MLB and NFL have it right. You win or you lose, that's it. Leave me alone with a 3-point system. You win, either in regulation or OT/shootout, you win. When you lose, you lose. Why would there be an overtime if it's worth less than a regular win, bring back tie games if you want to think that way.

My two cents,

Frank

And, in the end, why not remove the 5-minute OT? Or add 5 minutes to the third period when it reaches 0 seconds and the game is tied so teams could each score goals. Then, go to SO if there's no winner after 65 minutes.

Eklund: The Simple System That Would Make the NHL Races 100% Better
- Eklund

Keep it simple Ek.

2 points for a win....
0 points for a loss....

PERIOD.

I think you should stop thinking of "ideas" to make hockey better. You aren't a "hockey mind". You're a guy with a forum website that makes up rumors for hits. Stick to what you do best. Make shlt up.

They make the best stew. Adults are too sinewy. Nothing beats, roasting up the neighborhood fat kid.
- WayneZ

Paging FlyFreaky. Paging FlyFreaky.

hankthetank is back