Current point system is BADLY flawed

[stevkrause 1,247]

Last year, look how many teams hit 100 pts due to this pathetic point system... it's not adequately separating teams and it's hurting the overtimes, because once teams get there, they already have a point and play it too safe, just waiting for the shootout if they don't get a break - no need to take a chance, because you walk away with the same points...

I think this needs to be changed to a 3 point system, with more emphasis on team play, I personally hate ties and think the shootout should stay FOR REGULAR SEASON ONLY - but it needs to be altered

3 point system:

Win in regulation or overtime - 3 pts

Win in a shootout 2 - pts

Loss in a shootout 1 - pt

with this structure, EVERY outcome is worth a grand total of 3 pts, and if you win in a shootout, you don't get the same points as winning in OT or regulation, so it gives teams more incentive to play harder in OT.

I think it's glaringly obvious...

[Jamaica Jon 1]

Last year, look how many teams hit 100 pts due to this pathetic point system... it's not adequately separating teams and it's hurting the overtimes, because once teams get there, they already have a point and play it too safe, just waiting for the shootout if they don't get a break - no need to take a chance, because you walk away with the same points...

I think this needs to be changed to a 3 point system, with more emphasis on team play, I personally hate ties and think the shootout should stay FOR REGULAR SEASON ONLY - but it needs to be altered

3 point system:

Win in regulation or overtime - 3 pts

Win in a shootout 2 - pts

Loss in a shootout 1 - pt

with this structure, EVERY outcome is worth a grand total of 3 pts, and if you win in a shootout, you don't get the same points as winning in OT or regulation, so it gives teams more incentive to play harder in OT.

I think it's glaringly obvious...

I think the fact that you get 0 points for losing in overtime will cause teams to play it even MORE safe.

[betterREDthandead 58]

I agree it would be better at 3-2-1-0, but I'm not sure why the current system is "BADLY" flawed. It's served pretty well so far. I don't think the overtimes are particularly hurt. Some pretty decent hockey gets played.

You say this...

Last year, look how many teams hit 100 pts due to this pathetic point system

...as if having a lot of teams hit 100 points is a bad thing - but you realize a hell of a lot more teams would get to 100 if wins were worth three, right?

Edit: Also, this:

I think the fact that you get 0 points for losing in overtime will cause teams to play it even MORE safe.

Spot on. If you're just five minutes away from that precious point, why jeopardize it? It's the last two or three minutes of regulation that suffer, not overtime.

[Cern 0]

My only issue is that the shootout is a lame way to win/lose a game. Keep the 4-on-4 overtime but extend it to 10 minutes or even a full period length. Five minutes is just too short to get any momentum really going. The shootout remains as a final tiebreaker, but with an overtime of an actually substantial length it wouldn't need to be relied upon nearly as much to conclude a game's outcome.

[greenrebellion 415]

The current point system has bothered me since guaranteed points began to be awarded in the overtime period. In my opinion, it has created way too much parity where there are 5 or 6 teams separated by just a couple of points at the end of the regular season. There is nothing wrong with parity, but playing an 82 game season just to have a bunch of teams lumped together at the end seems kind of pointless. But I also agree with some of the concerns raised regarding teams playing safe, hence here's my idea on a new point system:

Regulation win - 3 points

Regulation loss - 0 points

OT/Shootout win - 2 points

OT Shootout loss - 1 point

With this, teams will theoretically play hard even at the end of the third working towards the extra point...and in overtime, there is nothing to lose, just like the current system. Thoughts?

[stevkrause 1,247]

I agree it would be better at 3-2-1-0, but I'm not sure why the current system is "BADLY" flawed. It's served pretty well so far. I don't think the overtimes are particularly hurt. Some pretty decent hockey gets played.

You say this...

...as if having a lot of teams hit 100 points is a bad thing - but you realize a hell of a lot more teams would get to 100 if wins were worth three, right?

Edit: Also, this:

Spot on. If you're just five minutes away from that precious point, why jeopardize it? It's the last two or three minutes of regulation that suffer, not overtime.

having 100 point teams in a 2 point system is where I have the problem... if it were a 3 point system, the actual amount of points is irrelevant, as opposed to having that many teams "equal" to 50 or more wins worth of points due to all the tie BS

I also would like to see it upped to 10 minutes in OT

I just don't think the shootout should get the same worth, but I don't think an OT win should be valued any less.

Win as a team, lose as a team.

[TheOwl 77]

The system is pretty good right now. Although I don't think overtime should be sudden death. Just have 5 full minutes of 4v4. Basically whoever gets the first powerplay in OT wins the game. 4v3 can't be that hard to score. And really I wish they would remove 2nd assists like they do in the Russian elite league. Maybe Crosby and Malkin won't get 3 assists every night for basically doing nothing. But the problem with changing anything is it deflates or inflates the stats of teams or players playing now versus years ago.

[Guest Shoreline]

I don't get why it was changed to teams receiving one point for OT at all. Just go with 2 points for a win, 0 for none. Also, if we're gonna do the SO, just go for a 10 or 20 minute OT, rather than a measly 5 (a compromise as I'd rather it be like baseball and they go until someone wins) .. so at least it seems more like teams played to a deadlock and need a decider (a la penalty kicks) rather than just throwing something in for the sake of 2 minute entertainment.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

I am OK with the point system, but overtime needs tweaking. The 4-on-4 overtime for five minutes is pointless. Most teams would just rather sit back and take their chance at an extra point in the shootout. Add five more minutes of 3-on-3 after the 4-on-4 and by then the game should be decided. If it were up to me, I would eliminate shootouts altogether as it is a terrible way to decide a winner and give a team an extra point. Bettman knows what is best for the league though.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I like the point system. Shootouts whether you like them or not get the crowd going like a fight will, and are just about the most exciting way to end a game. Also with the extra point and so many teams making it higher in the standings, it makes for an excellent show during the last couple weeks to see what teams are hungry enough to play for the final eighth spot. Anyway, we're on top of the league now, and we were prior to the point system change, so it won't really affect us too much no matter what type of system is implemented.

There are problems with extending OT beyond five minutes, because that added time is usually cutting off some other program's time, which generally won't fly.

[P. Marlowe 748]

What about this:

Regulation win - 3 points

Regulation loss - 0 points

OT win - 2 points

OT loss - 1 point

Shootout win - 1 points

Shootout loss - 0 point

This would make regulation wins more valued, but also would make overtime wins more valued that shootout wins. Teams would play harder in overtime.

I also like the idea of 10-minute overtime as now it seems to be over so quickly. Maybe TV and their schedules would have something to say here...

[Frozen-Man 144]

I like the point system. Shootouts whether you like them or not get the crowd going like a fight will, and are just about the most exciting way to end a game. Also with the extra point and so many teams making it higher in the standings, it makes for an excellent show during the last couple weeks to see what teams are hungry enough to play for the final eighth spot. Anyway, we're on top of the league now, and we were prior to the point system change, so it won't really affect us too much no matter what type of system is implemented.

There are problems with extending OT beyond five minutes, because that added time is usually cutting off some other program's time, which generally won't fly.

Another problem with playing till one team wins (or even just another 20 minutes) is that there are many back to back games - if you consider that a team might play 3 games in 4 nights and then tack on that one or more of those games might go an extra period or two and that is an awful lot of hockey for a team to play in 4 days (could easily be 11 or 12 periods in 4 days). I mean consider how many games the Wings have had go into OT this season. That is tons more hockey which will make the product not as good because the guys will be much more worn out.

edit: clarify

Edited December 15, 2008 by Frozen-Man

[Canadian_Yzerman_Fan 7]

The current point system has been put in place to meet certain ends, and it is doing so quite well.

There is a smaller gap amongst all teams in the standings (causing a more competitive fight for playoff spots at the end of the season, instead of having it clearly set at the beginning of march with a month of coasting hockey with minor position jockying)... and... the nhl WANTS shootouts... they're entertaining... giving teams reason to make a shootout not happen is counter intuitive to what the league wants.

Additionally, the owners are a tough bunch to win over on new point systems so it is very difficult to make anything happen

edit: spelling

Edited December 15, 2008 by Canadian_Yzerman_Fan

[steveyzerman 0]

Win in regulation: 2 points

Win after regulation: 1 point

Lose: 0 points

I don't understand why the loser is rewarded.

Edited December 15, 2008 by steveyzerman

[Frozen-Man 144]

The current point system has been put in place to meet certain ends, and it is doing so quite well.

There is a smaller gap amongst all teams in the standings (causing a more competitive fight for playoff spots at the end of the season, instead of having it clearly set at the beginning of march with a month of coasting hockey with minor position jockying)... and... the nhl WANTS shootouts... they're entertaining... giving teams reason to make a shootout not happen is counter intuitive to what the league wants.

Additionally, the owners are a tough bunch to win over on new point systems so it is very difficult to make anything happen

edit: spelling

Excellent point! While I agree that it makes overtime boring. Most people like the shootout. It is always on highlights and showcases talent. While many purists (including myself to a degree) don't like the individual aspect of it and don't think it is really part of the game - everyone I know (again myself included) loves to see the shootout and cheer and scream the entire time. The league likes this - I think think it is here to stay - it is going to be hard to take away one of the most exciting parts of a game. There are many times at a game when it is close that I see people almost rooting against their team if they are ahead by a goal in the last minute because they want the game extended, want to see a nail biter (which you often get 5 or 6 of in the shoot out - each one its own little breakaway), and to see their favorite player exhibit their skill in the shootout. Too much entertainment for the league to take it away.

[DatsyukownzU13 1]

Win - Point

Loss - No Points

That's how it should be... loser points have never quite made sense to me. You definitely don't get any consolation points when you lose in the playoffs.

[greenrebellion 415]

What about this:

Regulation win - 3 points

Regulation loss - 0 points

OT win - 2 points

OT loss - 1 point

Shootout win - 1 points

Shootout loss - 0 point

This would make regulation wins more valued, but also would make overtime wins more valued that shootout wins. Teams would play harder in overtime.

I also like the idea of 10-minute overtime as now it seems to be over so quickly. Maybe TV and their schedules would have something to say here...

You could end up with a sick situation where a team needs one point to clinch a playoff spot on the final game of the season and intentionally throws the game in overtime (if it gets that far) in order to insure a playoff berth.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

I'm probably repeating ideas of other people but I haven't really read initial responses in depth, so I apologize in advance...

Ties are not a bad thing to me in the regular season, and assuming that shootouts and definite wins/losses didn't exist today, I wouldn't mind going back to the old W-L-T system.

But I do like shootouts.

And I would definitely change the current point system as I don't like a guaranteed point in OT/shootout even if you might not win. It's a charity point to me, even if they may make the standings more exciting at the end of the season.

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

1 point for a win in a shootout.

2 points for a win in overtime.

3 points for a win in regulation.

[Grim 5]

Win in regulation: 2 points

Win after regulation: 1 point

Lose: 0 points

I don't understand why the loser is rewarded.

I like this scenario the best.

[Canadian_Yzerman_Fan 7]

Win in regulation: 2 points

Win after regulation: 1 point

Lose: 0 points

I don't understand why the loser is rewarded.

For parity... it makes the standings closer causing more "excitement" in the playoff race at the end of the season... though the skill between teams may be distant, it does not appear that way on paper this way... that means the fans of the teams that aren't quite as good still feel good about their team because they are competing in the standings instead of being so far behind the league leaders... those who pay a lot more in depth attention will still know which teams are clearly better than others, but for the casual fan it doesn't look that way and that means more fans coming out to see and root for more teams... the end result is more money for more teams... keep arguing that the point system should be changed, but you're fighting a losing battle

[BeeRYCE 2]

The most logical is...

Any win - 2 points

Shootout loss - 1 point

Regulation or overtime loss - 0 points

It should be W-L-SOL.

[Holmstrom96 347]

Last year, look how many teams hit 100 pts due to this pathetic point system... it's not adequately separating teams and it's hurting the overtimes, because once teams get there, they already have a point and play it too safe, just waiting for the shootout if they don't get a break - no need to take a chance, because you walk away with the same points...

I think this needs to be changed to a 3 point system, with more emphasis on team play, I personally hate ties and think the shootout should stay FOR REGULAR SEASON ONLY - but it needs to be altered

3 point system:

Win in regulation or overtime - 3 pts

Win in a shootout 2 - pts

Loss in a shootout 1 - pt

with this structure, EVERY outcome is worth a grand total of 3 pts, and if you win in a shootout, you don't get the same points as winning in OT or regulation, so it gives teams more incentive to play harder in OT.

I think it's glaringly obvious...

WOW.

I have always taken issue with the "1 point for trying" system they have. It makes me mad because there is no penalty for losing in overtime, and there should be. The whole idea is that teams will take more chances to score in the 4v4 OT if they have nothing to lose, but it just shouldn't be that way.

My thought was to make a win a win (2 points) and a loss a loss (0 points).

However, I think your 3 point system is a GREAT compromise! Great job on thinking that up and articulating it!

[Holmstrom96 347]

There are problems with extending OT beyond five minutes, because that added time is usually cutting off some other program's time, which generally won't fly.

Agreed. There would be potential problems with extending OT.

I don't believe they resurface the ice between the 3rd period and regular season OT, so playing on crappy ice is an issue. They do a partial resurface for the shoot-out of just the center portion of the ice.

I still like the idea of the 10 minute overtime. I would love to see the league experiment.

Current: 5 Minute 4v4 OT + shootout

Option A: 10 Minute 4v4 OT + shootout (this might take too long)

Option B: 10 Minute 4v4 OT w/o shootout (this would keep length in check, but then would bring the possiblility of a tie back, although the possible is reduced because it is 4v4 and twice as long)

Personally, I really like the current system because there are no ties and it makes a shootout a nice treat to see every once-in-a-while. I do agree that I don't like loser points. A three point system would make the loser points worth less (if the losers in OT\shootout only get one point and the winners get 2 points).

[jellytoast 1]

how about:

2 pts win

1 pts tie

0 pts loss

that's the way dad did it, and it worked out pretty well.

If the ******* want to play for a tie whom cares?

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

how about:

2 pts win

1 pts tie

0 pts loss

that's the way dad did it, and it worked out pretty well.

If the ******* want to play for a tie whom cares?

I'm on board with this. I really just prefer the old way. It seemed like the teams played harder with the goal of coming away with all points available.