A new point system for the NHL

[vangvace 12]

3 points for win in regulation

1 point for win in SO/OT

[Lady in REd 0]

Eh, I can't say I'd want it to change, I'm liking the current point system.

[LeftWinger 5,152]

...here's a novel idea, 2 points for a win in regulation or OT, ZERO points for a loss in regulation OR OT. 1 point each for a tie. Scrub the shootout! Why reward a team for losing? STOOOOOOPID!!!!!! A team could theoretically lose EVERY game in OT and still make the playoffs and win the CUP!!!!!!

[imisssergei 0]

I understand what you're saying. But your example actually exemplifies my point that people only like long OT games if THEIR team is involved.

How much of the OT game did you watch in last years Stars-Canucks game? If you said all 5 OT's, then you're in the 5% that did.

I love watching any hockey, especially playoff hockey, but too many times over the past 5 years I couldn't watch the completion of them because they lasted 7 hours.

And most OT goals look nothing like Stevie's. Most of them are off 3 pairs of legs, someone's butt and in the net. OT hockey is usually some of the worst hockey you'll see all year. That's because every team goes into a shell and doesn't chance anything.

I used to be a purist, but I've changed as I've gotten older. Sports=Money nowadays. And if we all want the NHL to get more TV exposure changes like these will be on their way.

It's been well documented how much ABC, Fox and now NBC hate how long some games will go. It hurts their ratings and kills their other programming lineups.

You are wrong. A fan of hockey, while he (I use he in the generic sense, no offense to the hockey loving ladies) obviously cares more about the games his team plays in, will watch other games as well. I didn't watch every game, I do have other things to do, I should be so lucky as to just watch hockey. I did watch 3 games in that series. Maybe I'm just old school, but I love playoff hockey. The intensity it brings, the way any play can swing the series. A few buddies of mine and I all get together during the playoffs, every night there is a different game on. Every night we watch. Every night we cheer and jeer. It's playoff hockey. No other sport can match what hockey does in it's playoffs.

As for the networks ratings getting hurt by a long overtime game, that doesn't really make sense. There is not really anything on after a game anyhow. Seriously, what starts at 10:30 that so attractive? What hurts the network ratings is the simple fact that it's hockey, and American's don't watch hockey. What the networks want is for the NHL to be the NFL. That isn't going to happen. The problem with hockey is that there is too much going on. The average American doesn't have the attention span to keep up with a hockey game. The only sport that comes close to matching the NHL's speed is the NBA, but that comparison is stark. Americans don't like to focus on what's going on in the field of play the entire game. That's why football does so well. People can watch an entire game and see every single play, while only paying attention to less than half of the broadcast. It takes effort to watch a hockey game for the average American.

[Lady in REd 0]

...here's a novel idea, 2 points for a win in regulation or OT, ZERO points for a loss in regulation OR OT. 1 point each for a tie. Scrub the shootout! Why reward a team for losing? STOOOOOOPID!!!!!! A team could theoretically lose EVERY game in OT and still make the playoffs and win the CUP!!!!!!

Then give them a chance to win it

[BeeRYCE 2]

Theoretically, no. If a team lost 82 games in OT, they'd have 82 points. The 8th seed from each conference over the last few years at least has been a 90+ point team.

[timothy1997 0]

3 pts for regulation win

2 pts for OT/Shootout win

1 pt for OT/Shootout loss

0 pts for regulation loss

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Too many of you are proposing systems where you get 3 or 4 points for a win, but the problem with that is it rewards teams too much for winning in shootouts. If you're going to have a shootout, you have to keep the system the way it currently is. Anything else is too complicated, or too unfair.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

3 points for a regular-time win

2 points for an overtime win

1 point for a win in a shootout

0 points for a loss at any point in the game, no if's/and's/but's

And while I definitely like shootouts and the entertainment aspect of them, do not change overtime-style playoff hockey whatsoever. While I definitely like 4-on-4 open ice as well, nothing comes close to a sudden death OT playoff game 5-on-5.

[RedFX 48]

I like the soccer system.

3 points for a win (of any kind)

1 point for a OT/Shootout loss

I like the extra point for a win, as it further separates the winning team from the losing team.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

The day Game 7 of a playoff series is determined by a frickin' shootout, is the day I stop watching hockey. It's bad enough we have to watch that garbage during the regular season anyways. The scary thing is, I don't doubt this is something Bettman would think is good for hockey.

Edited January 16, 2008 by GoWings1905

[dgodzina 0]

I think everything should be kept the way it is except one thing. Take away points for overtime losses. I'm not a big fan of giving teams points for any type of loss, especially since no credit is given for losses in the playoffs. This would also add more drama to the overtime and, if nothing was settled in the five minute overtime, the shootout. This way every game would have a winner and a loser, and we can keep the shootout, which is fun to watch anyway and adds a little flair to some of the regular season games. I also agree with those who would be disgusted if any type of shootout happened in the playoffs.

[Dano33 41]

No more shoot-out.

Go back to the old points system

Win = 2

Tie = 1

Loss = 0

One overtime period that lasts 20 minutes, five on five.

[eva unit zero 271]

To me, there are two valid options, and which one is chosen depends on the answer to the question of 'Do you award a point for a shootout loss?'

If your answer to that question is YES:

Then the only valid option is what has been suggested many timesi nthis thread, and something I have mentioned many times before;

3- Regulation/OT win

2- Shootout win

1- Shootout loss

0- Regulation/OT loss

A loss in OT should NOT be given an extra point; we've seen during the time of the OTL that rewarding a team for not losing in regulation just shifts the 'playing not to lose' to the end of the third rather than to the overtime period, and doesn't really make for better hockey overall. Getting three points for an OT win instead of 1 point for a SOL or 2 for a SOW would cause teams to play more offensive hockey during the overtime as the point spread would be a greater difference between winning in OT and going to the shootout.

If your answer to the initial question is NO;

You award 2 points for a win, and zero points for a loss. Using this method, one could even abolish points entirely; as a win of any kind would be the only method of receiving a point, the wins column would be just as capable of determining standings as the points column.

I personally favor the former system as it allows for a distinction between shootout wins and regulation wins, rather than counting a shootout victory as equal to a regulation victory.

As far as the shootout in the playoffs is concerned...The 1994 Olympic Gold Medal was determined by shootout. I have never once heard someone argue that it was invalid for that reason. World Cups have been decided on penalty kicks before; nobody argues that "it's not soccer" and refuses to watch. I would rather see endless overtime, but realistically we have to accept that a shootout is a likely future change for the playoffs, more than likely happening after at least one 20-minute, 5-on-5 overtime.

Edited January 17, 2008 by eva unit zero

[chrisdetroit 189]

I especially like the bolded portion. It would nail those teams like Anaheim that deliberately force games into OT/SO.

And if the Stanley Cup is ever decided by a shootout, THAT is the day that the NHL will finally lose me.

Aneheim? What the hell are you talking about? Aneheim is 3-3 on the shootout. Do you mean Edmonton?

[chrisdetroit 189]

You are wrong. A fan of hockey, while he (I use he in the generic sense, no offense to the hockey loving ladies) obviously cares more about the games his team plays in, will watch other games as well. I didn't watch every game, I do have other things to do, I should be so lucky as to just watch hockey. I did watch 3 games in that series. Maybe I'm just old school, but I love playoff hockey. The intensity it brings, the way any play can swing the series. A few buddies of mine and I all get together during the playoffs, every night there is a different game on. Every night we watch. Every night we cheer and jeer. It's playoff hockey. No other sport can match what hockey does in it's playoffs.

As for the networks ratings getting hurt by a long overtime game, that doesn't really make sense. There is not really anything on after a game anyhow. Seriously, what starts at 10:30 that so attractive? What hurts the network ratings is the simple fact that it's hockey, and American's don't watch hockey. What the networks want is for the NHL to be the NFL. That isn't going to happen. The problem with hockey is that there is too much going on. The average American doesn't have the attention span to keep up with a hockey game. The only sport that comes close to matching the NHL's speed is the NBA, but that comparison is stark. Americans don't like to focus on what's going on in the field of play the entire game. That's why football does so well. People can watch an entire game and see every single play, while only paying attention to less than half of the broadcast. It takes effort to watch a hockey game for the average American.

Overtime playoff hockey is the ultimate. There is nothing better. Do NOT mess with it. When the Wings are playing, I will stay up as long as it takes and I will be on the edge of my seat the entire time.

[Viperar 16]

winning = you get points

losing = you dont get points

I dont care how many say well in OT or Shootout youve been playing longer and therefore deserve points, OT losers do not get points in the NFL, NBA, MLB, Soccer, or any other sport I can think of.

I am tired of Hockey giving points out to the losers, as if to say its ok, you tried, here's a point.

Lets go to the simple system of you win you get points, you lose you get none

[Viperar 16]

I like the soccer system.

3 points for a win (of any kind)

1 point for a OT/Shootout loss

I like the extra point for a win, as it further separates the winning team from the losing team.

which soccer league are you watching that rewards 1 point for OT/shootout loss?

[auxlepli 17]

2 = Win

1 = SO Win

0 = Loss

In regular season no OT, straight to SO.

Playoffs stay as they are now.

[imisssergei 0]

winning = you get points

losing = you dont get points

I dont care how many say well in OT or Shootout youve been playing longer and therefore deserve points, OT losers do not get points in the NFL, NBA, MLB, Soccer, or any other sport I can think of.

I am tired of Hockey giving points out to the losers, as if to say its ok, you tried, here's a point.

Lets go to the simple system of you win you get points, you lose you get none

I agree. I never really thought about this, but since there are no longer any ties, what's the reasoning behind giving points for losing in OT?

Taking things a step further, the point system could be eliminated all together. Just go by wins and losses. First tie breaker goes to the team with the most regulation wins, from there, the standard tie breakers take over.

[calfan 0]

I agree. I never really thought about this, but since there are no longer any ties, what's the reasoning behind giving points for losing in OT?

Taking things a step further, the point system could be eliminated all together. Just go by wins and losses. First tie breaker goes to the team with the most regulation wins, from there, the standard tie breakers take over.

I was thinking the same thing, worded differently. Networks want the games to end on time, losers shouldn't be rewarded and hockey games shouldn't be decided by a shootout. So, no OT, no shootout, winner gets 2 points, loser gets 0 points and if its tied there are 0 points. Playing for a tie is still a risk, but less often. For the most part, teams always need more points and will play for the win. If you feel the game needs a winner, then have a shootout to determine a winner, but don't award any points for the win. Shootout records would only be considered for tie breakers at the end of the year when determining who's in the playoffs and what position they are ranked. Two teams are tied for the final playoffs spot with 45 wins each, you look at their record against each other including shootout. One's in, one's out.

I also like the 3 point system - 3 points for reg win, 2 points for OT/shootout win and 1 point for OT/shootout loss.

One suggestion not seen here, indefinite OT, but start 4-4, drop to 3-3 after 2 minutes and then 2-2 after another 2 minutes and go until its decided. We do that for the playoffs in Calgary Minor Hockey. The games usually end pretty quick.

[thedisappearer 291]

I love watching any hockey, especially playoff hockey, but too many times over the past 5 years I couldn't watch the completion of them because they lasted 7 hours.

And most OT goals look nothing like Stevie's. Most of them are off 3 pairs of legs, someone's butt and in the net.

Can I get some evidence of this? I don't recall "many" games lasting 7 hours over the last 5 years, and I seem to remember most OT games end in the first 5 to 7 minutes on an "average" goal.

Playoff shootouts are retarded, plain and simple.

And I wanna play in the Norris Division of the Campbell Conference while we are at it. I hate this Geographical Division in the Direction Conference BS.

[thedisappearer 291]

A team could theoretically lose EVERY game in OT and still make the playoffs and win the CUP!!!!!!

82 points doesn't get you into the playoffs anymore, thanks to the invention of 3 point games.

[thedisappearer 291]

As far as the shootout in the playoffs is concerned...The 1994 Olympic Gold Medal was determined by shootout. I have never once heard someone argue that it was invalid for that reason. World Cups have been decided on penalty kicks before; nobody argues that "it's not soccer" and refuses to watch. I would rather see endless overtime, but realistically we have to accept that a shootout is a likely future change for the playoffs, more than likely happening after at least one 20-minute, 5-on-5 overtime.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the World Cup didn't change to penalty kicks deciding the winner, it has always been that way. I can't say about the Olympics...

[stormboy 47]

the only thing wrong with the current system is that some games are worth more than others. there are forty eight games between the other teams in your division that don't involve you, correct? (st. louis vs. nashville, chicago vs. colombus, etc.) that means, one way or another, at least 96 points are going to be added, in some combination, do your division opponents, assuming they're all 2 point games. on the other hand, if they're all three point games, 144 points are generated by intra-divisional games that don't involve your team. that's a pretty big difference.

i am not a fan of the tie, for the reasons others have stated; essentially, it's a huge letdown. i also am not a huge fan of indefinite overtimes for regular season games, not only because of tv reasons, but because of potential injury. if one team continually is getting into long overtimes, their total minutes played are going to be a lot higher come season's end. i don't like the schemes with four points because, although you can make every game worth the same ammount, you get into the whole 15-8-7-2 thing, although, undue complications aside, i think that actually makes the most sense. i don't like awarding a team for just making it into overtime.

the idea of making a shootout win 1 point, all other wins 2 points and all losses zero points has some merit...but you still have unbalanced amount of points per game. it's basically the same as the current system, but instead of rewarding a team for making it to the shootout, you're punishing a team for requiring the shootout. i could see this working if you did a ten minute four on four overtime, with an overtime win being two points and an OT loss being zero. this way, the teams wouldn't be playing for the shootout, since no team would want to lose the point, and the longer OT would make it much more likely that a winner would be decided that way.

in this way, the purists aren't quite happy, because it's four on four not five on five, and there's only one ten minute OT, but you'll see a lot less games decided on the shootout, so they'll be somewhat happy. the people who like the thrill of the shootout won't be quite happy, because you'll see less of them and, more importantly, you won't REALLY be able to celebrate because you only got half the points you could have...but you'll still get to see shootouts. the thing with making shootout win almost worthless (the same amount of points as some losses currently) is that the shootouts will be less exciting because much less will be on the line.

maybe 2 for any win, 0 for any loss, but make the OT period longer so that fewer games are decided by a "gimmicky" fashion. there would also be less stops and starts (the last minute of basketball analogy is imperfect but fairly comparable) because you'd have one longer period before stopping again for the shootout. the way it is now, it seems like OT is over almost as soon as it begins.

so, i don't really have a proposal. just rambling. oh, but please don't touch the playoff OT system. when one point out of eighty two games is on the line, you can argue about whether a shootout is too much of an individual effort. but when four losses end your season, you can't let one (or more) of them be decided by shootout.