Results 1 to 10 of 15
-
07-04-2013, 02:52 AM #1Assistant General Manager
NHL in need of new three-point system
By Michael Lopez
On Valentine’s Day in 2010, Nashville travelled to Pittsburgh for a matinee affair that was rife with playoff implications and a sold out Mellon Arena crowd was treated to an exciting, back and forth contest.
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...daily_20130703
-
-
07-04-2013, 02:24 PM #2
The only change to the point system should be two points for a win, ZERO for a loss. Losers should not be rewarded in any way, shape, or form. This is not soccer. It would also eliminate confusing stat columns.
-
07-04-2013, 05:41 PM #3
Just bring back tie-games. The shootout is for morons.
-
-
07-06-2013, 07:49 AM #4
Ties are for Fathers Day. A loss is a loss and you get ZERO points. Give the shoot-out winner 1 point.
-
07-06-2013, 05:31 PM #5
Never got at tie as a Dad or gave a tie to my Dad. Canadian Hockey players don't do such frivolous things as that. We leave the soft stuff to the USA.
Shootouts are for non-thinkers, non-team players.
-
-
07-07-2013, 10:19 PM #6
If you don't want shootouts, I'd do more overtimes.
I cannot stand not having a winner. It irks me.
What if two teams are trying to clinch a playoff spot? One team has to win, one has to lose.
-
07-08-2013, 12:56 AM #7
Yeah, if anything, ties are for morons. It's similar to soccer, where everyone can be a winner!
-
-
07-08-2013, 11:16 AM #8Hockey Advisor
I have zero issue with ties, and would be very happy to see the NHL return to the old system, where a game ends in a tie if OT solves nothing. Tie games were never a problem for the NHL. Boring games, where two teams were more conserned about "not losing" than they were about "winning" was the problem.
I'm also realistic, and know that is never going to happen. The shootout is here to stay. The only thing that might change is the OT format, shootout format, or the manner in which points are awarded.
The current system (when they started awarding a point for an OT loss) was to accomplish two things:
In theory, at least, it was supposed to make teams play for the win in OT, since they would still get their point. The counter point to this one is that teams play to "get to overtime" during tied 3rd periods now. Games were scoring changes dissapear due to both teams playing tight d.... they've just changes what part of the game that happens in.
The other thing that three point games did, is create the illusion of parity. Most seasons the 7th or 8th ranked team in their conference is signficantly better than the 12th ranked team...... but the standings don't reflect that. They create the illusion that the 12th place team is actually in the race. THIS is why the current point system is probably not going anywhere. All by 3 or 4 teams are still "in it" at the begining of March. Keeps fans interested longer, as their team is still in the race.
Assuming that the league is never going to drop the OT / Shootout combination..... and will continue to award pity points to the loser..... I'd actually like to see a 5 point system: If you win in regulation, you get 5 point. In OT, you get four..... with one going to the loser. In a shootout you get 3, with two going to the loser.
This would reward teams for winning the game in the earlier stages, and (in theory) would push them to play harder.... go for the win.... in Regulation.
I do not care that it would mean teams would now have 200 point seasons, and it would skew things when comparing to seasons from 10, 20, 40 years ago. Comparing season point totals is already meaningless, unless you're staying within a specific era.
The argument that something like this would make the standings harder to understand is also a joke. Anyone who can read & do math at a grade 2 level would be able to follow along fine. They'd just have to want to do it.
-
07-08-2013, 12:05 PM #9
Not having tie games is only appealing to those who don't understand Hockey. It's not about a decent game, it's about money, and getting a non-fan to pay attention to the Sport.
Those of you that think the Shootout was incorporated to make the game better, have been sold a line of crap. The Shootouts puts arses in seats that don't understand how Hockey is played, but want to be entertained.
Bettman realized that he had to have one of three things to get bums in seats in the USA because above all, Americans must be entertained, Sport be damned.
1. Constant Fighting - (New fans think that players play hockey between fights - they really think that)
2. Basketball Scores - A 0-0 Hockey game is something not understood by a new fan.
3. A hook to lure in spectators that is not hockey specific. A Side-show that guarantees some excitement without the fear of death)
He settled on "The Hook" as all good showmen do. Give the fans a side-show. The Shootout is a Side-Show, and not another bloody thing more. It removes itself from the team concept of Hockey immediately when exercised.
I love how people that say a tie Hockey Game is like a chess match. How would you know?, have you ever played a tied Chess Match? Have you ever played in a tie Hockey Game?
I say the answer is NO to both, but you still feel that people need to respect your knowledge, especially when none is shown.
-
07-08-2013, 04:44 PM #10
I don't want to see the NHL return to the tie game point system. In every game there's a winner and a loser, and I can't stand the thought of going to a hockey game and not being guaranteed at least 1 goal. It's hockey. It's not soccer.
Ties are pointless (figuratively). I don't want to watch a game and after 3 periods of play go: "Oh well, I guess we're back where we started."
I'm a supporter of the IIHF point system for basically all European leagues (as far as I'm concerned):
A win in regulation means 3 points to the winning team and 0 points to the losing team. If a game is won in either OT or a shootout, the winning team receives 2 points and the losing team 1 point.
It's fair, it's understandable, and you know that at the end of the day, 3 points will be awarded.
-
Originally Posted by centrehice 
