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

TFC:


Montreal:

- hankthetank

BUUZZZZZZ

Ek we can get more hits on our site with 5 regs than you can get with thousands of users on your main blog. Pretty sad.

"Even when your team is facing off directly against a team you are chasing the excitement is lessened by the fact that unless you win in regulation you are looking at a single point gain at best." -Eklund

aren't you contradicting your entire argument with that sentence right there. wouldn't needing to win in regulation to get 2 points rather than 1 point lead to more exciting games when the two teams facing off are in a battle for, lets say, 8th? that sentence alone reduces ur persuasion to none. what they should do is the same thing european soccer does. works there, why not here

I rather like the fact that the conferences are so tight. Its not like the system favours particular teams. If a team isn't making the playoffs, its because they aren't good enough to qualify. Its not like the other teams cheated their way into the playoffs. Learn to adapt to the system like the playoff qualifiers.

How about this:


1. SHOOT OUT STARTS EVERY GAME........... who ever wins that, wins in case of a tie at the end of the game.

No more overtime.

2 Points for a win
0 for a loss.

I will accept cheques and money orders for fixing everything.

(COPYWRITE (C) BEATLE_JOHN --- NO PART OF THIS PLAN IN WHOLE OR IN PART MAY BE USED WITHOUT SERIOIUS SERIOUS COMNPENSATION)

All rights reseved.

Patent Pending

How about this:


- Beatle_john

How about this: Flyers beat the Leafs last night...

No soup for you

Rangers would have 115 not 114

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

TFC:


Montreal:

- hankthetank

Am I the only one that notices that they basically swapped colors of the Respective NHL teams

2 Points for the Win
0 Points for the loss.

It will simplify the standings sheet, and will give people a better indication of just where their teams stand.

I hate looking at the standings and seeing Florida with 67GP 31W 23L 13OT for 75 points. When they should only have 62.

Now that I think about it. If there is no point for the tie, it really should just go to wins and losses like baseball.

This might actually help bring in fans in the south as well as it'll be easier to transfer their knowledge from baseball over to hockey.

OR, just get rid of the loser point and reinstate the 'tie' system. There, races are fixed and now standings will make more sense.

Shootouts should be gone.

Nevermind, after reading through other posts, seems only logical to go to a win-loss system. But what do we do with overtime (seeing as I don't like the shootout)?

How about this: Flyers beat the Leafs last night...
- Flyfreaky

Dude everyone beats the Leafs right now they only have like 5 wins since the all-star break. I feel asleep it was so boring

2 points for win
0 point for loss
4 on 4 unlimited OT (until a goal is scored).

How about this:


1. SHOOT OUT STARTS EVERY GAME........... who ever wins that, wins in case of a tie at the end of the game.

No more overtime.

2 Points for a win
0 for a loss.

I will accept cheques and money orders for fixing everything.

(COPYWRITE (C) BEATLE_JOHN --- NO PART OF THIS PLAN IN WHOLE OR IN PART MAY BE USED WITHOUT SERIOIUS SERIOUS COMNPENSATION)

All rights reseved.

Patent Pending
- Beatle_john

thats actually a good idea

- Rayven

"Even when your team is facing off directly against a team you are chasing the excitement is lessened by the fact that unless you win in regulation you are looking at a single point gain at best." -Eklund

aren't you contradicting your entire argument with that sentence right there. wouldn't needing to win in regulation to get 2 points rather than 1 point lead to more exciting games when the two teams facing off are in a battle for, lets say, 8th? that sentence alone reduces ur persuasion to none. what they should do is the same thing european soccer does. works there, why not here
- bbsunshine92

Let's start stoning people to death and having women wear capes over their head because it works in the middle east.

We need to lose those loser points period.This is ridiculous,why would you get points for losing?

Look its muck simpler than this ....ALL GAMES MUST BE WORTH THE SAME AMOUT OF POINTS.....you cant have 2 point games or three point games as we have now...Ecks system is even worse..1, 2, or 3 point games!!!! I dont think so....

3 points for Regulation win......2 points for OT win or SO win ....1 point for OT loss or SO loss......

Simple keeps all game values the same and rewards teams that wi in regulation...MAKE IT HAPPEN

Why not just have 4 on 4 sudden death and go to the win/lose standings again. No points or nothing just you won you loose.

P.S. Why should a team who won in overtime be punished? Because it took them a extra minute or two to score? I see the Shootout one that makes since but to punish a team because they needed a extra minute or two to win doesn't make since. If you want to stick with points then 2 points for win regulation/overtime, and 1 point for shootout win. 0 points for lose. It makes it a little simpler than yours anyways.

2 points for a regulation or OT win, 1 point for a shootout win, 0 points for any loss.

The whole 3 points for a regulation win is retarded. OT win should count the same as regulation win. Its team hockey being played. I hate the whole 4-on-4 think it should stay 5 on 5, but whatever.

Just get rid of points all together. If you win you get a W if you lose you get an L.

If not 2 for regulation win, 1 for overtime or shootout win and 0 for a loss. Reward teams that play to win.

6 on 6 OT. no goalies.

The other problem that is not addressed is a weak division getting a 3rd seed while there are 2 or 3 other teams from stronger divisions who have better records. I mean, come on. Dallas having a higher seed then Detroit or Nashville?