Holland's Tie-Breaking Rule

[Dano33 41]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...?urn=nhl,146740

Ken Holland is expected to present a new tie-breaking rule for playoff seeding at the NHL GM meetings this week. Basically he thinks when teams are tied in points, the team with more regulation wins should get the nod.

I think it is a pretty good idea.

[Ms_Hockey 0]

I'd have to hear about it in more detail. I like it better than what we have now - but it would be irritating to outplay a team, give up one fluke goal, and have them get the nod simply because they have more wins. Doesn't seem fair.

[SDavis35 140]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...?urn=nhl,146740

Ken Holland is expected to present a new tie-breaking rule for playoff seeding at the NHL GM meetings this week. Basically he thinks when teams are tied in points, the team with more regulation wins should get the nod.

I think it is a pretty good idea.

sounds good to me, just as long as you dont have to add points for regulation wins, and just check it out at the end of the season. Keep it simple.

[FunkedUp 29]

It's a good idea, but I'd rather discuss eliminating the 3-point game. How about all games are worth 2 points. 2 for a victory and 0 for a loss, even if its in OT or a SO. No ties. Instead of playing 5 minutes of overtime then we can play 10 minutes. Then after that we have a shootout.

Edited March 9, 2009 by FunkedUp

[C-TownWing 0]

Why not count OT wins too? They're accomplished while "playing the game" (albeit 4-on-4, but you could easily change that back) and aren't really the source of the problem.

I applaud the sentiment though--this is based on absolutely nothing, but it seems to me like the less deserving team usually wins when the games go to a shootout.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I'd have to hear about it in more detail. I like it better than what we have now - but it would be irritating to outplay a team, give up one fluke goal, and have them get the nod simply because they have more wins. Doesn't seem fair.

That's sports though. There have been plenty of occasions where a fluke play changes the outcome of a game and therefore changes the outcome of the standings. How is that not fair though? It's unlucky, but not unfair.

I love Kenny's idea.....I'm all for it.

[I Red Wings I 40]

I don't like the idea, keep it how it is

[I Red Wings I 40]

On thought, I really don't like the idea. It actually doesn't make any sense to me, it seems like another dumb stat to keep track of, it's not as simple as the tie breakers the NHL has today. If they're going to go in that direction, don't award the team who loses in OT or SO a point. That's just my opinion, I like to keep it simple.

[Williams29fan 6]

*nvm theres a new thread for it.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Williams29fan

[Ms_Hockey 0]

That's sports though. There have been plenty of occasions where a fluke play changes the outcome of a game and therefore changes the outcome of the standings. How is that not fair though? It's unlucky, but not unfair.

I love Kenny's idea.....I'm all for it.

Fair enough. It's mounds better than the system right now.

What about if it's the first or second game of the season and it's a tie? Do you base on last season's record?

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Fair enough. It's mounds better than the system right now.

What about if it's the first or second game of the season and it's a tie? Do you base on last season's record?

I'm confused by your question.

First, there aren't any ties so I'm not sure what you mean by that. Moreover, this doesn't have to do with tying anyway....Kenny is referring to regulation wins rather than *total* wins (regulation, OT and SO) being the first tie-breaker if two (or more) teams end up with the same amount of points.

Either you're misunderstanding what Kenny is referring to, or I'm completely misunderstanding you.

[Ms_Hockey 0]

I'm confused by your question.

First, there aren't any ties so I'm not sure what you mean by that. Moreover, this doesn't have to do with tying anyway....Kenny is referring to regulation wins rather than *total* wins (regulation, OT and SO) being the first tie-breaker if two (or more) teams end up with the same amount of points.

Either you're misunderstanding what Kenny is referring to, or I'm completely misunderstanding you.

I completely misunderstood the article. Hahaha. Boy, I feel silly.

[dat's sick 1,002]

It's a good idea, but I'd rather discuss eliminating the 3-point game. How about all games are worth 2 points. 2 for a victory and 0 for a loss, even if its in OT or a SO. No ties. Instead of playing 5 minutes of overtime then we can play 10 minutes. Then after that we have a shootout.

You like the idea of possibly playing 70 minutes+shootout and still getting 0 points?

I like the idea of having 10 minute OT, since that would mean less shootouts (which are fun to watch but often feels like a coin-toss), but I still think you should get 1 point for losing in OT. I don't understand why so many people dislike the 3-point game. Is it because we happen to be in a battle for 1st against SJ right now and they are the masters of picking up atleast 1 point?

As for Holland's idea, doesn't sound too bad. How is it decided now?

[LeftWinger 4,959]

the biggest change that should be made is #1-8 get in the playoffs, period. None of this reward you with a top 3 seed because youe won your division! There have been plenty of teams that didn't make the playoffs because of this rule even though they had more points than the #3 seed! Change that right now!

[MacK_Attack 108]

the biggest change that should be made is #1-8 get in the playoffs, period. None of this reward you with a top 3 seed because youe won your division! There have been plenty of teams that didn't make the playoffs because of this rule even though they had more points than the #3 seed! Change that right now!

Plenty?

Name one.

[Hockeytown_Ryan 119]

I think they should replace the shootout with Score-O

Then use the Score-O wins as your tie break

Just messin

[Hockeytown_Ryan 119]

You like the idea of possibly playing 70 minutes+shootout and still getting 0 points?

I like the idea of having 10 minute OT, since that would mean less shootouts (which are fun to watch but often feels like a coin-toss), but I still think you should get 1 point for losing in OT. I don't understand why so many people dislike the 3-point game. Is it because we happen to be in a battle for 1st against SJ right now and they are the masters of picking up atleast 1 point?

As for Holland's idea, doesn't sound too bad. How is it decided now?

:clap: WOOOO Right ON

[06TJSport 0]

the biggest change that should be made is #1-8 get in the playoffs, period. None of this reward you with a top 3 seed because youe won your division! There have been plenty of teams that didn't make the playoffs because of this rule even though they had more points than the #3 seed! Change that right now!

Since that system has been in place, I do not believe that any division winner would have missed the playoffs if it was based purely on the top 8 teams as ranked by total points

[KrazyGangsta 79]

We need to get 1st place, I really don't want to face the Flames and Kipper 2nd round.

[Wombat 26]

You like the idea of possibly playing 70 minutes+shootout and still getting 0 points?

I like the idea of having 10 minute OT, since that would mean less shootouts (which are fun to watch but often feels like a coin-toss), but I still think you should get 1 point for losing in OT. I don't understand why so many people dislike the 3-point game. Is it because we happen to be in a battle for 1st against SJ right now and they are the masters of picking up atleast 1 point?

As for Holland's idea, doesn't sound too bad. How is it decided now?

There are some people, like myself, that don't like that there are 3 points at stake for OT games, but only 2 for regulation games. A team losing twice in OT probably should not get as many points as a team that wins 1, loses 1 in regulation. I think anything that emphasizes winning in regulation is a good thing, whether it is making that a tiebreaker for playoff seeding or making regulation wins worth more points than OT/SO wins.

[Shockwave180 0]

the biggest change that should be made is #1-8 get in the playoffs, period. None of this reward you with a top 3 seed because youe won your division! There have been plenty of teams that didn't make the playoffs because of this rule even though they had more points than the #3 seed! Change that right now!

That's completely untrue, and it would utterly eliminate the point of having divisions.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

How is it decided now?

From nhl dot com, at the bottom of the standings:

Tie-Breaking procedure

Division leaders are seeded 1, 2, and 3 in Conference standings. If two or more clubs are tied in points during the regular season, the standing of the clubs is determined in the following order:

1 The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage).

2 The greater number of games won.

3 The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing.

4 The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season.

Before they added #1, there was #2, #3 #4 and if #2, #3 & #4 still couldn't break the tie, a conference call was made and there was a coin toss.

In this decade, the DRW totals are:

Wins - Overtime Wins - Shootout Wins = Net Wins

2000-01: 49-10-0=39

2001-02: 51-10-0=41

2002-03: 48-7-0=41

2003-04: 48-7-0=41

2005-06: 58-4-4=50

2006-07: 50-3-2=45

2007-08: 54-2-5=47

2008-09 (through 43 games): 43-6-2=35

[MacK_Attack 108]

The proposal was voted down by the GM's.

[DyingAlive 27]

Speaking of getting trumped, Detroit GM Ken Holland's eminently logical proposal that the first tiebreaker for playoff positioning should be the number of regulation wins as opposed to total wins got little support.

"It was discussed in a group meeting and really got voted down in the small group meeting," Holland said. "From a fan's standpoint, it's easier to look at the wins, losses and know that the team with the most wins has got the first tiebreaker."

From Burnside:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...&id=3971151

[eva unit zero 271]

Well, the only solution then is to devise a new 3-point game. Perhaps like so:

W(Regulation/OT Wins): 3 points

SOW(Shootout Wins): 2 points

SOL(Shootout Losses): 1 point

L(Regulation/OT Losses): 0 points

Work for everyone? All games are worth 3 points, and only shootouts are worth different values for wins and losses. Perhaps also introduce a ten-minute overtime?