NHL to Revamp Point System?
March 12, 2009 by Big Tony
The NHL GMs meeting just happened and perhaps the most prominent of them was fighting’s future in the NHL. To be short on this, it’s not going anywhere. Nobody who has any significant weight wants to get rid of it and so it is going to stay, end of discussion. Another topic they discussed that actually might change is somehow giving more weight to regulation wins versus overtime or shootout wins. Most of you probably know this but for those who don’t the current system is two points for a win while the losing team gets zero for a regulation loss, and one point for losing in overtime or a shootout. With that in mind as a base, the following are some of the suggestions for how to change the current format in no particular order:
1. A system that puts three points at stake in every game. Under this system a team gets three points for a regulation win and two points for an overtime or shootout win; while the losing team gets one point for an overtime/shootout loss and zero for a regulation loss.
2. The winning team gets two points for a regulation or overtime win and one point for winning in a shootout while the losing team gets zero points regardless of the stage of the game in which they lose.
3. Make regulation wins the first tie-breaker. The theory behind this is that it leaves the point awards as is but adds some emphasis on the number of games won in regulation versus overtime/shootout. The current first tiebreaker (assuming teams play the same number of games) is wins no matter when they occur.
There may in fact be other ideas but these are the most talked about and probably have the best chance of being implemented. Personally I’m ok with either of the three of these but we are sportsroids.com would like to hear from you. What do you think of the ideas above? Are there any other ideas you have that you want to pose? Do you think a change should be made at all? Let us know!
I think if a change must be made I think it should be as follows:
-Give a winning team 2 points no matter when they win (Regulation,OT,or SO).
-Give the losing team no points for losing in OT.
-Extend the OT period to 10 minutes rather than 5 (Still 4-on-4, this should force more games to finish in OT rather than a SO)
-In the event a game does make it to a SO, give 1 point to the losing team.
What do you guys think of that situation?
I just wish they would stop the damn tinkering.
this comment comes via http://ballhype.com/story/nhl_to_revamp_point_system/
I’m opposed to anything which will add another column to the standings. I don’t want to see, for example, that the Rangers are 20-12-22-3 (87pts), while the Penguins are 25-5-24-3(88pts). In this hypothetical example, the Rangers would actually have the better record (32-22-3 vs 30-24-3), but the Pens would have more points because they have more regulation wins. To me, this is no different than the current situation, in which one team can pass another in the standings simply because they waited until OT or the Shootout to lose.
I know it won’t happen, but…If I were in charge, I’d get rid of the skills competition Shootout and bring back the Tie (after a 5-minute OT). I have no problem whatsoever with the Tie; in fact, one of the most exciting games I ever attended was a Blues-Stars game back in the ’90s in which the Stars were down, 4-1, after two periods, and battled back for a 5-5 tie.
this comment comes via http://ballhype.com/story/nhl_to_revamp_point_system/
I once saw the Penguins and Avalanche tie at 6 and it was a really exciting game so I can relate to that. And I believe that argument has some merit. On the other hand, TheProgram is probably right, stop changing tinkering with what’s working. If a change is made at all I say two points for wins in reg. and OT and one point for a shootout with none going to the loser. BUT, if they leave it the way it is I’ll be just fine with that too.
I can agree with most of the comments. There should be a better outcome for those won win in regulation than having to use extra time to win. If they never changed a rule than hockey would still be hockey. They need to just bring back the old days, missing teeth, no helmets unless they wanted to, FIGHTS before the faceoff or right after. I remember the old days of Probert and Domi. Those were the best days of hockey. I remember Doug Gilmour having all of his 3 teeth. Thats what kids need to see, hockey in its pure form. But making these rules is like telling a lie. Now they have to implemenet new rules to cover up for their past screw ups. Makes no sense to me.
Here is what I think they need to do:
1) Abolish the silly points structure altogether. Base the standings entirely off of wins and losses (as is done in the N.F.L).
2) Abolish the shootout. If the score is still tied at the end of overtime then let the game end in a tie.
3) If the game ends in a tie, then count it as half of a win and half of a loss for both teams (as is done in the N.F.L).