Eklund: Fixing The NHL: 3 points for a regulation win or more Yes or No and Why?

Ek...you need to start reading your blogs before you post them. For the love of God.

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.

your Missing the Point -get it ???

Ek...you need to start reading your blogs before you post them. For the love of God.
- Ray97

what did he ever do to you to make you hate him enough to make him read these awful blogs?

Slow day at your so called '0ffice' EK ?

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!

Semantics. It's effectively a loser point. Teams were never given a point if they lost in OT in the past... so why now?

Having said that, the league needs to reward regulation wins with a 3rd point as it's patently ridiculous that more points are given if a game makes it to overtime.

As stupid as it sounds, I think the reason why the NHL has been reluctant to adopt the 3pt for a regulation win rule is that it would significantly effect points total records. Yes, I said it was stupid but I remember an exec from way back talking about this very reason.

This doesn’t fix the NHL. Change the playoff format back to 1vs8 2vs7 etc so teams are actually rewarded for having good seasons instead of having to see good teams bow out in the first round. Nobody wants to see 2 of Boston, Toronto or Tampa done after round 2.

Also, get rid of the fricking instigator rule so guys can muck it up and settle scores themselves after cheap plays. Give the power back to the players to police the game and guys will think twice about a headshot or swinging their stick at someone’s face.

Those things would both have a WAY bigger impact on the game than anything you’ve suggested.

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

Just quit screwing with assinine gimmicks and put the game back the way it was. Old point system with tegular season ties was fine. Get rid of the trapazoid nonsense. And put the playoffs format back how it was at that too.

3 point nonsense gimmick stuff is a hard no

How about 4. Get rid of the shootout completely.

Play 3 on 3 until there's a winner. Winner takes all. No points for losing,and no more individual skills competition to resolve a team game.

This doesn’t fix the NHL. Change the playoff format back to 1vs8 2vs7 etc so teams are actually rewarded for having good seasons instead of having to see good teams bow out in the first round. Nobody wants to see 2 of Boston, Toronto or Tampa done after round 2.

Also, get rid of the fricking instigator rule so guys can muck it up and settle scores themselves after cheap plays. Give the power back to the players to police the game and guys will think twice about a headshot or swinging their stick at someone’s face.

Those things would both have a WAY bigger impact on the game than anything you’ve suggested.
- Djmbrown

+1

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.

Only thing(s) I would be satisfied with:

1) 3 points for a win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for OT loss

Like someone mentioned, get rid of the stupid shootout and make it continuous OT if they must have a winner. The shootout is a disgrace to the game and sports. It has been said before, but it is like having a field goal kicking contest in an NFL game to determine a winner.

2) 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie. No winner point.

Plus it would mean the game would end in the team format, not with only two players in the ice.

Just let ties stand after 60 minutes of regulation hockey.

The most popular sport in the world, and every major league of that sport, has ties. What is the North American obsession with determining a winner every freaking game? Is it because of something Don Cherry said?

3 on 3 isn’t hockey. Shootouts are not hockey.

Ties during the regular season. Sudden death until someone scores in the playoffs.

Bettman will 'fix' it.

Oh wait...

This doesn’t fix the NHL. Change the playoff format back to 1vs8 2vs7 etc so teams are actually rewarded for having good seasons instead of having to see good teams bow out in the first round. Nobody wants to see 2 of Boston, Toronto or Tampa done after round 2.

Also, get rid of the fricking instigator rule so guys can muck it up and settle scores themselves after cheap plays. Give the power back to the players to police the game and guys will think twice about a headshot or swinging their stick at someone’s face.

Those things would both have a WAY bigger impact on the game than anything you’ve suggested.
- Djmbrown

Disagree, I'm gonna love seeing Tampa and Boston done after round 2! 😁

Oh my god did you even proofread your blog before posting it. It sounds like someone in Grade 3 wrote it. For Christ sakes reread them before posting, all those mistakes make you sound so unprofessional and it’s hard to take you seriously.

Lets go back to the previous playoff format

Will never happen: the glorious king of kings NHL doesn't take rules from the peasant peons of the IIHF.

3 point because teams with amazing 3vs3 players or shootout specialists would be more motivated to still try to win in regulation.

2 point games would still have certain teams playing for an overtime win.

Semantics. It's effectively a loser point. Teams were never given a point if they lost in OT in the past... so why now?

Having said that, the league needs to reward regulation wins with a 3rd point as it's patently ridiculous that more points are given if a game makes it to overtime.

As stupid as it sounds, I think the reason why the NHL has been reluctant to adopt the 3pt for a regulation win rule is that it would significantly effect points total records. Yes, I said it was stupid but I remember an exec from way back talking about this very reason.
- mjones242

Team were given a point for a regulation tie.

It is a bonus point

I have brought this up with the NHL and they love this system because teams are close artificially close in the standings

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

Interesting shootout idea but the parody concept may be off.. if there were three point games, games would be worth more, allowing teams who are trailing at the 55 game mark still have a legit shot of getting back in if they go on a run of regulation wins.