A new point system for the NHL

[OsGOD 3]

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

My feelings exactly.

Win the game you get the riches... Lose the game and you get to hear gene Wilder scream, "so you get nothing! You lose! Good day sir!"

[redwings56 1]

for the most part, I am kinda a purist to the game and usually think the only real changes that should happen are those to get it back closer to its original form.

With that said, unlike many purists, I LOVE the shootout, I hated when regular season games ended in ties and thought it was almost a waste of time - Keep in mind, this only applies to REGULAR SEASON - Playoffs are and should ALWAYS be sudden death, first goal wins.

Now, in contrast to that, hockey is a TEAM game and I think it should be decided as a team game - This is where my problem with the shoot-out comes in: Deciding a team game, with an individual effort. Yet... I hate ties... so my proposal: a change in the point system awarded during the regular season.

Make it based on a 4 pt per game system, with points being awarded as such:

4 pts - Regulation/Overtime win

3 pts - Shootout win

2 pts - Shootout loss

1 pt - Overtime loss

0 pts - Regulation time loss

If this point system were put into place, it would award those teams that won AS A TEAM by getting the maximum amount of points

Teams that fought through the 65 minutes of regulation and OT to still be tied - also walk away with at least 2 for the team effort.

Teams still get 1 just for making it to OT, but this is where the extra incentive to win it AS A TEAM comes in - If you win in regulation or OT as a team, you can get more pts than just waiting and settling for the shootout

I think it would make overtimes harder fought and mean more.

I don't mean to disprestect you, but why would you increase the amount of points given on any given night? That is the problem right now, there are too many 3 point nights which keep soo many teams in the race. Look at the East, they have about 5-6 points separating 3rd to 10th. It is not working well right now to give points to a losing team, and also when someone says a team that is 20 - 18 - 12 is 2 games above .500??? come on they lost 12 games that you aren't counting, why not count overtime/shootout wins as well so we know how many teams have actually been given the extra point based on the flip of a coin.

Any way your idea of give 4 point!!! 4 POINTS to the winner? that is ridiculous. The teams would play extremely defensively in OT so they could get the extra point in a shoot out based on your logic? just rediculous 'new system' next time leave it at the bar stool.

2 points to winner

0 points to loser

[calfan 0]

The idea of reducing the points awarded for a shootout is silly and would seem to be sponsored by those who think that the NHL is rewarding teams that clearly are just playing for the shootout a la Edmonton. First off, I'm not sure the Oilers are playing for a shootout. I'm pretty sure they would rather win in regulation so that their opponent doesn't get any points seeing as how they play 72 games against teams they need to beat to get into the playoffs. Secondly, even if you accept the argument that teams play for the shootout, you can't hold an argument that the team playing for the shootout will necessarily be the one that wins. If the Wings go all out for a win the whole game, but end up in the shootout, why should they be penalized with a 1 point win rather than a 2 point win?

[Zeus Lizard 0]

How 'bout we actually play for a win

2 points Win

0 Lost

No more hey we got a point for a tie.

No to a 10 min ot, way to late for games. people are going to start needed points. So they might play a little harder in the 3rd and in the 5 min OT. Then the shootout will mean more. And you won't have stars trying to be fancy they will shoot to score.

This is the way I feel...You win or lose...Doesn't matter how. If people knew that losing in OT or a shoot aout meant ZERO points, they would be more exciting.

[Guest Jeremy88]

You change the rules, you change the record book. You change any ways of comparing yesterday's hockey players to today's hockey players statistically.

Here's something every sport needs to learn. CHANGING THE RULES RUINS THE SPORT

[eva unit zero 271]

The idea of reducing the points awarded for a shootout is silly and would seem to be sponsored by those who think that the NHL is rewarding teams that clearly are just playing for the shootout a la Edmonton. First off, I'm not sure the Oilers are playing for a shootout. I'm pretty sure they would rather win in regulation so that their opponent doesn't get any points seeing as how they play 72 games against teams they need to beat to get into the playoffs. Secondly, even if you accept the argument that teams play for the shootout, you can't hold an argument that the team playing for the shootout will necessarily be the one that wins. If the Wings go all out for a win the whole game, but end up in the shootout, why should they be penalized with a 1 point win rather than a 2 point win?

My view is the only reason to award fewer points for a shootout win is if you award points for a shootout loss; otherwise it's the same problem of varying point values for games, but with a different variable. If you don't award a point for a shootout loss, shootouts should be worth the same as a regulation win; if the loss is equal, so is the win.

[imisssergei 0]

You change the rules, you change the record book. You change any ways of comparing yesterday's hockey players to today's hockey players statistically.

Here's something every sport needs to learn. CHANGING THE RULES RUINS THE SPORT

Rules are changed all the time. Just look at a tape of a game 10 years ago.

Changing the rules in a natural progression of sports.

Basketball adding the 3-point line.

Football institution the roughing the passer rule.

Baseball adding a steroid testing policy.

This would be nothing different.

However, I think you need to make the point system a little more simple for the average fan. No other sport rewards teams for taking the game into extra frames.

2 points for a win.

0 points for a loss.

Plain and simple. No ties. Keep the shootout, except in playoff hockey, it draws attention.

[Lou_Siffer 1]

2 pts regulation/OT win

1 pt for Shootout win

0 pts for Loss

I really do not like the fact that shootout wins count the same as winning the game outright....i think thats bull. Give the fans their shootout, but have the teams battle for only one point. Loser gets squat.

[eva unit zero 271]

2 pts regulation/OT win

1 pt for Shootout win

0 pts for Loss

I really do not like the fact that shootout wins count the same as winning the game outright....i think thats bull. Give the fans their shootout, but have the teams battle for only one point. Loser gets squat.

That doesn't solve the problem of games counting for varying amounts of points, which is the point of this thread.

[Lou_Siffer 1]

That doesn't solve the problem of games counting for varying amounts of points, which is the point of this thread.

I thought the point of this was just throwing out how you'd like to see the point system.

Edited January 19, 2008 by Lou_Siffer

[Sepster 0]

The reason the OT/Loss point was created was to entice teams to play for a win back in the days ties existed. The thinking was that once a team had already garnered a point by getting to overtime, they would be more willing to go for the extra point by winning in overtime, rather than just sitting back and playing for a tie.

However, now that ties don't exist anymore the OT/loss point should go away altogether and there ahould be 2 points for a win (Regulation/Overtime/Shootout) and 0 points for a loss.

Really, if your goal is to get teams to play for a win (which is what the NHL's stated goal is), then what gives teams the best motivation to go for a win.

Obviously, the safest strategy for any team is to try and win in regulation. A team has 60 minutes to play solid hockey and you have time to press early, press late, make up for mistakes, whatever your fancy.

Overtime is a little more dicey, you can still play well, but one mistake sinks you.

And shootouts are evening more dangerous, you can be a well rounded team, but if your going up against a lesser team that only has two, maybe three, really skilled guys (Edmunton for example) all bets are off.

So, by taking away the OT/loss point, the best bet for any team is to win a game in regulation.

Thats the biggest motivator you can get, ALL or NOTHING. Every teams' number one priority woudl be to give themselves the best opportunity to gain points and that would be to try really damn hard to win in regulation and THAT is what would give us, the fans, the best games to watch.

[Bren4Wings 0]

I'll admit up front I am no fan of the shootout. I see it as this. It turns a team sport into a skills competition that right now is deciding pts and playoff positions.

My newest thought on this subject is this.

Regulation and OT win = 2 pts

Regulation and OT losses = 0 pts

IF after OT there is still a tie, divide the pts just as ties use to, 1 pt to each team. Continue on to the shootout to deem a "winner" but the only reward of winning a shootout would come into play as a tie breaker.

This would make all games worth the same amount of pts. It would not reward "losers" a pt while playing as a team. At the same time, it doesn't reward teams for turning a team sport into a skills competition. Also it would not then screw up past stats/records by making games worth more pts, like making games worth more pts would.

I agree with others, no way does a shootout get used to determine playoff games.

[Sepster 0]

Bren4Wings that system doesn't work. It was used for 25 yaers that way and if a game was tied with 5 minutes left in regulation teams would go into a defensive shell and play for a tie.

It was incredibly boring and thats why the "3 point" game was invented.

[discohadestwo 0]

I'd prefer two points for a win, zero points for a loss.

& that's with the shootout.

Edited January 19, 2008 by discohadestwo

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I'd prefer two points for a win, zero points for a loss.

& that's with the shootout.

Yeah right! Then Edmonton would have one of the best records in the West, and teams would be rewarded for a stupid gimmick done only to please a fanbase that doesn't care about hockey. That's all the shootout really is. It's ridiculous enough that it gets as much weight as it does, there's no reason to give it any more significance.

[discohadestwo 0]

Yeah right! Then Edmonton would have one of the best records in the West, and teams would be rewarded for a stupid gimmick done only to please a fanbase that doesn't care about hockey. That's all the shootout really is. It's ridiculous enough that it gets as much weight as it does, there's no reason to give it any more significance.

Umm... ?

You win the game you should be rewarded. You lose, you shouldn't be.

All the other professional sports base their standings off win percentage. It makes it easier to follow for the fans.

I've loved hockey my whole life & I understand this diehard fan stuff, but I'm pretty sure the other major three are faring a lot better than the NHL & it pisses me off.

Now, I'm not saying this is THE reason why the NHL has a poor fanbase, but if knucklehead Gary B wants to gain new fans, this would be a better step in that direction than what he is doing.

My ideal situation would be to have continuos overtime through the whole season. It'd be crazy & it'd never happen, but that'd be a TON of hockey & I'd love it.

That aside, I love the shootout. Yea, it's new, but things change. Get over it. A win is a win. A loss is a loss.

If you're going to have the shootout, might as well make it worth something. You know, add a little premium to the idea, instead of it being a gimmick.

... You are what you eat?

Edited January 19, 2008 by discohadestwo

[eva unit zero 271]

Umm... ?

You win the game you should be rewarded. You lose, you shouldn't be.

All the other professional sports base their standings off win percentage. It makes it easier to follow for the fans.

I've loved hockey my whole life & I understand this diehard fan stuff, but I'm pretty sure the other major three are faring a lot better than the NHL & it pisses me off.

Now, I'm not saying this is THE reason why the NHL has a poor fanbase, but if knucklehead Gary B wants to gain new fans, this would be a better step in that direction than what he is doing.

My ideal situation would be to have continuos overtime through the whole season. It'd be crazy & it'd never happen, but that'd be a TON of hockey & I'd love it.

That aside, I love the shootout. Yea, it's new, but things change. Get over it. A win is a win. A loss is a loss.

If you're going to have the shootout, might as well make it worth something. You know, add a little premium to the idea, instead of it being a gimmick.

... You are what you eat?

The NHL used to use winning percentage. The problem is the OTL point. People generally agree that losers shouldn't get a point. Except that "diehard" hockey fans don't want to see a shootout win given the same value as a regular win, so we would still run into the different value games quandary, where a team can make the playoffs and have a good chance to win their division if they manage to win 25 games and don't lose in regulation. It all comes back to my initial post; it's either move to a 3-point system where regulation and OT are 3 to the winner, but shootouts are 2 to the winner and 1 to the loser, or move to a system where any kind of win is worth points, and losses are not. The second system could, alternatively, be a move away from a point system as all wins would count the same and all losses would count the same, and those would be the only available outcomes.

[imisssergei 0]

I'm a fan of the shootout, but I hate how teams get points for not losing in regulation.

I think it should be all wins and losses. I don't care if that means a team shuts it down at the end of regulation and in OT to get to the shootout. Wins and losses. That's all that matters to me.

[krudmonk v2.0 0]

They implemented to shootout to cater to the ignorant common man ("ties are homosexual communist terrorism"). They would take a step backwards on that front by using an insanely complicated point system. We don't want the stupids and their money to run away.

[Turkey 0]

I'll admit up front that I really have no idea how this would impact things but would it work to give 2pts for a W in regulation and 1 pt for a win in OT or shootout? Loser gets 0.

That way you get an extra bump for winning in reg but there is still a big emphasis on winning in OT or the shoot out rather than shrugging and taking your one point for being a big fat loser.

[Bren4Wings 0]

Sepster, I understand your point on the idea I submitted. However, the current system is not working either. As I stated, this was a relatively new thought to me, because I have been all for bringing in a 3 pt system. After hearing others who oppose the idea, this idea came to mind. No matter what system is implented, there will be some factor(s) that some don't agree on.

On the current system. Outside of the obvious that has already been stated.... The system is set up to reward teams who have shootout success or even make it past regulation. The perfect example is the Sabres last yr. They won the Pres Trophy and home ice advantage throughout the postseason because they had more "wins". The tiebreaker system currently set up as it is, the Sabres won, due to "more wins" but it was "shootout wins" not actual wins in regulation that was the deciding factor--they had 10 shootout wins. As a Wing fan, I didn't care, nor do most that I know, that the Wings didnt win the Pres Trophy. Now had it come down to the Sabres v Wings for the cup, and there was a game 7, can't say I would have felt the same. Bottomline, the current system rewarded the Sabres for being a great shootout team. No one can say they were a "great" regulation team when they had 22 of their games go past regulation. Just looking at that team alone, instead of dishing out 44 pts in those 22 games, there was 66 pts instead. Yet they were deemed the best regular season team. Can we say "flawed"?

On my new thought I was trying to take into account all the different factors I've heard others discuss/argue. The idea would leave the shootout in, so there was a winner for every game for those who argue that point. It would make all games worth 2pts, for those who argue that all games should be worth the same amount of pts, while staying within the realm of 2 pts per game for the history or "purist" buffs. It would reward teams for playing and winning as a "team", rather than rewarding an individual skills competition and penalizing teams that aren't great at the skills competition aspect.

On to your point. The same thing is happening now, as it did in the old system, in regards to the last 5 minutes of play when there is a tie. The thought is, lets make sure we get the 1 pt, the same as it was in the old system. The only difference is, they know a 2nd pt will be rewarded in 1 form or another. Teams who are good at the shootout, arent going all out in OT, they are trying to make it to a shootout instead.

I personally don't see a team going into a "defensive shell" as such a bad thing. Come the postseason, teams need to be able "shut it down". It would actually give teams more practice at it before the playoffs start and be more "playoff ready" if you will.