3 point games

[Shaman 713]

Ok, I understood the 2 point 1-1 split pre-shootout, but now that someone has to win, I really think that all games should be win/loss with no OT points. I think it will make the shootout more exciting, and tactually meaningful. Also its like how a lot of kiddy sports are nowadays 'well you lost, but its ok, you still get a point'.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Shaman464

[Blood On The Ice 15]

i have always hated the 3 point games. It should be 2 for a win and 0 for the loss. The only way both team should be awarded points is if the NHL dropped the shootout and went back to ties. Then each teams gets a point for a tie. while this would never happen, a team could lose all 82 games and still make the playoffs. Of course each game would have to go into overtime, mathematically its possible.

[Guest mindfly]

What about...

3pts = win in regulation

2pts = win in OT, loosing team gets 1.

If OT doesn't solve anything, it's a TIE teams get 1pts each.

REMOVE SO PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE

Edited March 6, 2009 by mindfly

[Donaldjr2448 43]

I have never liked the shootouts anyway! I just don't understand how the NHL could use something like the shootout to decide games, when the shootout will not be used in the playoffs. Basically teams will make or possibly not make the playoffs because they won or lost shootouts, when like I mentioned, there are no shootouts in the playoffs.

I say get rid of the extra point, if you lose, then you lose. Loss=0pts. I don't like teams getting points for losses!!

[FinWing 26]

What about...

3pts = win in regulation

2pts = win in OT, loosing team gets 1.

If OT doesn't solve anything, it's a TIE teams get 1pts each.

REMOVE SO PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE

This is what I think too, it's the system we have here in Finland. IMO equal amount of points should be awarded in each game. If you get the job done in regulation, you get rewarded for that with the extra point.

[IceMunkee 15]

I only liked the shootout for about 15 minutes. Once the novelty wore off. I just think it is boring and a little ridiculous. I also agree lets do 2-0 for the win/lose and 1-1 for the tie.

If a game MUST be decided pick the 2 wimpiest guys and have them duke it out at center ice. Or better yet have 2 players one from each team sit down bare booty on the ice and the last one to get up wins!!! Now that would be entertainment.

Also any team that has cheerleaders automatically loses overtime disputes.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

If shootouts remain, which I like...

0 points for a loss, no ifs, ands, or buts

1 point for a win in a shootout

2 points for a win in overtime

3 points for a win in normal time

Would look goofy in the standings though unfortunately (RegW, OTW, SW, L for example).

If now shootouts,

0 points for a loss, no ifs, ands, or buts

1 point for a tie

2 points for a win

[Herr Hockey 0]

How about this....keep the shootout and:

0 points for a loss

2 points for a win.

It's complicated, I know.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Ok, I understood the 2 point 1-1 split pre-shootout, but now that someone has to win, I really think that all games should be win/loss with no OT points. I think it will make the shootout more exciting, and tactually meaningful. Also its like how a lot of kiddy sports are nowadays 'well you lost, but its ok, you still get a point'.

First, i'm not a fan of the shootout. I think its gimmicky. However, going into today:

In the West the 6th place Preds have 70 points and the 13th place Kings have 63, a 7 point difference separating 8 teams.

In the East, teams 4 through 10 are separated by just 7 points.

Literally there are 21 to 23 teams still in contention for the 16 playoff spots. IMO, that has made for some really hard fought, exciting hockey these days.

The way its set up now is apparently working. So I wouldn't f*** with it. JMHO.

[Yzersyukstromberg 0]

What about...

3pts = win in regulation

2pts = win in OT, loosing team gets 1.

If OT doesn't solve anything, it's a TIE teams get 1pts each.

REMOVE SO PLEASEEEEEEEEEEE

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE!!!!

If overtime games are worth 3 total points in the standings, then why aren't regulation games worth that much too?????

If a team pulls out the win in regulation time, that should be worth more. With the system mentioned above, the standings wouldn't be so skewed because of OT games being worth a total of 3, and regulation games being worth only 2.

It's too bad that Bettman is a blowhard who will never make it happen.

[stevkrause 1,247]

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE!!!!

If overtime games are worth 3 total points in the standings, then why aren't regulation games worth that much too?????

If a team pulls out the win in regulation time, that should be worth more. With the system mentioned above, the standings wouldn't be so skewed because of OT games being worth a total of 3, and regulation games being worth only 2.

It's too bad that Bettman is a blowhard who will never make it happen.

That's my biggest problem, all game should be worth the same... I've been saying this for 2 years

3 pts for a win in reg or OT

2 pts for a win in SO, 1 pt for the loss

I don't think shootouts should be all or nothing, because it's a team game and shouldn't be decided by individuals, however, I like the SO for regular season, leaving in a tie sucks for everyone...

Every game worth a total of 3. period.

[Icer 0]

I hate shootouts....

I hate 4 on 4 OT.....

I hate ANY OT during the regular season....

I like ties...

Of course, I turn 44 next week so I am officially an old man...

I hate kids playing on my lawn, too....

[Dano33 41]

Get rid of the shootout make the overtime longer. 10 or even 20 min OT. 2 for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss.

[McCartyFanForLife 17]

It's fine the way it is; teams would be hitting the 100 point mark in the beginning of January if every game gave out 3 points.

Plus, if the "3 Point/Game system" was in place, all 16 teams that are currently in the playoffs would also be going to the playoffs in the new system. Their spots would be just be shifted a little bit.

[Hockeytown_Ryan 122]

It's fine the way it is....IMO it creates better battles for the playoff spots when its crunch time.

2Pts for a win - no matter how you win

1pt if you are tied at the end of the third (you earned it)

[stactum 4]

If shootouts remain, which I like...

0 points for a loss, no ifs, ands, or buts

1 point for a win in a shootout

2 points for a win in overtime

3 points for a win in normal time

Would look goofy in the standings though unfortunately (RegW, OTW, SW, L for example).

I like shootouts and I like the system you suggested. I also heard a lot of discussions about that on NHL on XM earlier this season and here is what's been said:

1. Rags are overrated (was in the beginning of the season) since they won a lot of Shootouts - the rest of the season confirmed that.

2. Four column reports are confusing for casual fans (f...k casual fans) RegW, OTW, SOW, L

3. Overtimes can't be longer because it's an airtime and games are long even without it so league is trying to not extend games any more than they are now.

I do like the concept that if team looses the game in OT or SO - won't get anything, I guess it would put some pressure on the team to score goals and not to relay on your goalie to get you 2 pts.

[Dano33 41]

It's fine the way it is....IMO it creates better battles for the playoff spots when its crunch time.

2Pts for a win - no matter how you win

1pt if you are tied at the end of the third (you earned it)

This is what i HATE, to be honest. The game has yet to be decided, you didn't earn anything.

[VM1138 1,921]

2 pts win

0 Points loss

Simple as that. No need to complicate it with 3 points, 2 points, 1 pt, and 1/2 point for losing a one goal game in regulation or a 1/4 point for playing a good game even though you lost or anything like that.

[Holmstrom96 347]

100% agreement.

Someone earlier mention one thing I did like.

Have every game be worth three points.

Win in Regulation = Three Points

Win in Overtime\Shootout = Two Points

Lose in Overtime\Shootout = One Point

Ok, I understood the 2 point 1-1 split pre-shootout, but now that someone has to win, I really think that all games should be win/loss with no OT points. I think it will make the shootout more exciting, and tactually meaningful. Also its like how a lot of kiddy sports are nowadays 'well you lost, but its ok, you still get a point'.

[stormboy 47]

to me, this is sort of an insoluble problem. i'll explain why.

i understand that ties are perhaps more "pure" to the game...but you have to admit that it's a bit disappointing to play 65 minutes of hockey and have no team walk away the winner. and it makes sense that you can't do unlimited overtimes in regular season b/c you don't want players getting too fatigued/injured in super long games. hence, the shootout.

but then:

How about this....keep the shootout and:

0 points for a loss

2 points for a win.

It's complicated, I know.

the problem with this is that a shootout is a pretty quirky/random/individual-based (rather than team-based) way to win a game. for me, getting zero points for losing in a shootout is not justice. it's too random and not at all based on the overall team's play. while in theory i like the all-or-nothing approach, and hate three point games, i just can't bring myself to be okay with a team getting zero points for losing by shootout, in which the vast majority of either team is in no way involved.

Someone earlier mention one thing I did like.

Have every game be worth three points.

Win in Regulation = Three Points

Win in Overtime\Shootout = Two Points

Lose in Overtime\Shootout = One Point

this does make sense to me, but as silly as it sounds, i'm hesitant to get really complicated standings. there's something nice about, say, baseball standings, where it's simply wins-losses. having the standings look like 5-3-2-1 just doesn't sit well with me. again, not that these things really matter, but say a coach has worked in all three eras, his life-time records would be something like 200-12-42-150-80, for wins-OT wins-OT losses-losses-ties. again, maybe not a reason to NOT change it, but something i don't like. further, and again, maybe not a linchpin reason, but season points have been somewhat consistent for a long time (e.g. "it takes about 90 points to make the playoffs). obviously that's already a little bit skewed, but moving all games to three points (especially three points for a win) really throws those off.

while these might all be somewhat superficial reasons, i think together they make a descent case for not switching to three point games.

i guess my personal view is something of a compromise position that would be as mentioned before: keep ties, but make 4-on-4 OT a bit longer.

if it was 15 or even 10 minutes for 4-on-4, there would be very few ties, i think. i understand the time considerations, but baseball gets unlimited OT (extra innings) and somehow the networks make it work. also, the ONLY time this would really be a problem is for the few games that are on major networks. since the vast majority (i think) of regular season games are carried on the local sports channels, with some being on versus, it shouldn't be a big deal. what comes on after red wings games? maybe fox sports final score or a re-run of a bull-riding contest? honestly, you have to think that the fox sports channels and versus would get more viewers for longer (which means more commercials which means more money) if the games went longer than from whatever comes on after most hockey games?

this way you can go to the straight 2/0/1+1 point system of yore, and with longer 4-on-4 OTs, i think the benefits would be:

- all games are worth the same

- all games are decided by the TEAM, not a small selection of players

- no team would get a point for losing

- most games would still likely end with a victor

- OTs would be very exciting, and sense they'd be long, i think it would make up for the "excitement" factor of the shootout

- simple standings (i agree that casual fans are going to be confused by four- or five-number standings)

anyway, that's just what i think. i mean, sure, when the wings make it to OT, i'm like, "well, at least they got a point," but it really pisses me off when, say, i see that the sharks lost and get excited, only to find out they lost in OT aGAIN, and that it's really not as good as i thought it was. plus, if you've got a log jam for a playoff spot, and two teams that are very close to you in the standings end a game in OT, you just got shafted because you cannot possibly get more than two points in a game, but three points were just doled out to your opposition in one game. i ultimately agree that, no, you have NOT earned ANYthing by simply making it OT.

sorry for the long post...hopefully my thoughts make sense.

[Hockeytown Red Wings 245]

I only hate them when they work against us. I love them when we play half ass, somehow manage to get in overtime and lose.

[MacK_Attack 108]

I don't think the extra point is necessary now that there has to be a winner. It was good when there was still ties because it gave teams insurance to go and try to win in OT, but I think it's unnecessary now.

[55fan 5,133]

I don't worry about skewing stats. That happened when they implemented the shootout and got rid of ties.

I have also found that explaining the system to non-hockey fans makes me look smart. That takes a lot, so I take it where I can get it.

I have actually come around on shootouts. An OT win is much more exciting, but I do like to get something out of it at the end. I guess I've just started looking at the shootout as a whole bunch of breakaways happening in quick succession.

I do agree, however, that games should be worth equal points. If one team gets rewarded for losing, the other team should get penalized for letting them get that far. I favour the 2 for a win, 0 for a loss. My second choice is 3 for a regular win, 2 for an OT/SO win, 1 for an OT/SO loss, 0 for a regular loss.

Yes, the latter screws up the whole "first to 100" thing, but the extra point for the SO/OT did that already.

(I hate it when kids play on my lawn too-except the one time I was thinking "pull up your pants- you look like an idiot" and the pants dropped off. That's entertainment.)

[Zetterling 16]

I like the 3 point game. It's good for teams that might not make the playoffs and it makes the beginning of the season more relevant. I think it also reduces risk of injury and it allows teams to play different styles. It adds an extra element of strategy and it's entertaining. I guess it encourages skill over physical play.

I don't think it takes much away from a regulation win. You can likely expect the team with more regulation wins to do better in the playoffs than the team that stacks up points in shootout wins and OT losses. Lots of playoff games go into some serious overtimes though anyway. So these teams that are stacking up the OT losses are still proving something on the ice for those nights.

3 points for a regulation win? I guess I don't see the extra points for a regulation win meaning anything come playoff time. It's kind of like the team that loses in regulation loses some points. It would make things weird, especially for back to back games and the variations in schedules. A regulation win and an overtime win are the same in the playoffs. Teams are guaranteed 82 games in regular season anyway. I guess the shootout point says something about the unpredictability of playoff overtime games. Maybe it's too much of a reward for a shootout but then there are some playoff losses where the losing team played really awesome and gets nothing.

It also keeps the goalies playing good.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Zetterling

[Wombat 26]

I just ran a few scenarios with the Western Conference:

-Current

1. SJ - 94

2. DET - 94

3. CAL - 84

4. CHI - 81

5. VAN - 74

6. NSH - 70

7. CBJ - 70

8. EDM - 68

9. DAL - 68

10. ANA - 68

11. MIN - 67

12. STL - 64

13. LA - 63

14. PHX - 61

15. COL - 57

- Regulation Wins and OT wins = 3 points. SO Wins = 2 points. SO Losses = 1 point. Regulation Losses and OT losses = 0 points.

1. SJ - 127

2. DET - 125

3. CAL - 117

4. CHI - 111

5. VAN - 102

6. NSH - 98

7. CBJ - 97

8. EDM - 93

9. ANA - 92

10. MIN - 91

11. DAL - 89

12. STL - 84

13. LA - 84

14. PHX - 84

15. COL - 77

In this scenario, Edmonton falls a few more points behind Nashville and Columbus. Dallas goes from being tied for the last playoff spot to being 4 points out of it because they have fewer regulation wins (point totals buoyed by 5 shootout wins and 4 OT losses). There is also more separation between the bottom of the conference and the playoff contenders as St. Louis/Los Angeles go from 4 and 5 points out to 9.

-Regulation Win = 3 points, OT and SO win = 2 points, OT and SO Loss = 1 point.

1. SJ - 130

2. DET - 129

3. CAL - 118

4. CHI - 111

5. VAN - 101

6. NSH - 94

7. CBJ - 94

8. EDM - 94

9. ANA - 93

10. MIN - 91

11. DAL - 90

12. PHX - 87

13. STL - 84

14. LA - 84

15. COL 75

With this scenario, Nashville/Columbus/Edmonton are all tied for the last 3 playoff spots. Dallas again falls 4 points back from the last playoff spot. St. Louis and Los Angeles again fall further from playoff contention.

- Regulation, OT, and SO win = 2 points. Regulation, OT, and SO Loss = 0 points.

1. DET - 86

2. SJ - 84

3. CAL - 78

4. CHI - 72

5. VAN - 66

6. NSH - 66

7. CBJ - 64

8. EDM - 62

9. ANA - 62

10. MIN - 62

11. DAL - 60

12. STL - 56

13. PHX - 56

14. COL - 56

15. LA - 54

Detroit overtakes San Jose for the #1 spot. Nashville ties Vancouver for the #5. Edmonton/Anaheim/Minnesota are tied for the last spot and Dallas drops 2 points behind that. Interestinly enough, the biggest shakeup is at the bottom of the conference as Los Angeles takes the lead in the Western Conference chase for Tavares (thanks to Colorado being an amazing 10-1 in OT/SO).

Those are the major options I've seen people post. Personally, I think there should be no shootout and go back to W-L-T. I don't like 'winner take all' in shootout games so I'd rather see either the 1st or 2nd scenario I have listed here... each have their pluses and minuses but overall, there HAS to be a move towards making every game be worth the same number of points regardless of how it finishes. The extra point in some games just artificially bunches up the standings and makes it so fewer teams are willing to be sellers at the trade deadline.