3-Point System

[auxlepli 17]

I like the system as it is. There's no need to change it in my opinion.

[CdnWingsFanEh 2]

I'd rather the league go back to the 1998-99 point system, every game is 2 points ONLY. 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss. I never had problems with ties...

They'll never go back to that, so I'd be in favor of 3 point games all the time. Any comparison between eras have already been ruined since 1999-00 awarding overtime loses as 1 point, so I have no problems with every game being 3 points.

Edit: If the NHL wants to continue to give out 1 point for a OT or SO loss, than I think this point system would give truer Conference Standings:

-3 points for a Regulation Win

-2 points for a OT or SO Win

-1 point for a OT or SO Loss

-0 points for a Regulation Loss

I never really had a problem with ties, either. They existed for a reason. If 2 teams played for a tie, that meant that neither team was the better team that night. I don't see a reason that there HAS to be a winner in each game. That being said, I like your suggestion, but would tweak it to make it a 5 point game. If both teams show up to the rink on time, then each team gets 1 point just for making their appearance. The rest of the points can be divvied up as above... I guess we can issue points for getting skates tied up properly, as well. Hey, how about if one team gets no penalties all game, they get an extra point too!!!

Edited January 3, 2010 by CdnWingsFanEh

[Berry 2]

Personally I don't think that the 3-point system is a good idea. The reason is very simple: there will be a bigger points difference between the teams...

[Guest mindfly]

SEL got the best system, lights out:

Regulation win = 3pts

IF there is a tie result after 3 periods there's 5min of 4on4 hockey, a chance for both team to get an extra point, if one team score in the OT it gets 2pts the loser gets 1pts, if no team score within those 5mins it's THE END; TIE, each team gets 1pts.

Best of all, there is NO SHOOTOUT

Simply the way to do it imo.

Edited January 3, 2010 by mindfly

[stormboy 47]

I'd rather the league go back to the 1998-99 point system, every game is 2 points ONLY. 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss. I never had problems with ties...

They'll never go back to that, so I'd be in favor of 3 point games all the time. Any comparison between eras have already been ruined since 1999-00 awarding overtime loses as 1 point, so I have no problems with every game being 3 points.

Edit: If the NHL wants to continue to give out 1 point for a OT or SO loss, than I think this point system would give truer Conference Standings:

-3 points for a Regulation Win

-2 points for a OT or SO Win

-1 point for a OT or SO Loss

-0 points for a Regulation Loss

this. i feel basically the same way, with a little difference: i don't really like the idea of a tie, but it is preferable to endless OT. so, given three choices (1. endless OT = lots of hurt players; 2. shootout = flukey way to decide a game; 3. tie) i think that in the pure sense of the game a tie is the best option. but the NHL has s***ty TV ratings, and like it or not, it's a business just like everything else, and they need to make money. s***, i want them to make money (despite the obligatory bellyaching about how "everything is about money nowadays" or what have you) so i can keep watching my beloved game. and the fact of the matter is that everyone is on their feet for the shootout. and you are GOING to lose bubble fans if you take away the SO and go back to ties. you and i may not like it, but it's just the truth.

that being said, if you have to keep the shootout, which you do, go to a three point system. those, like you, that have said that the era-versus-era point comparison is f***ed already are absolutely right, so i don't see how that should even enter in to the conversation (if you really want to compare eras, you can do a little bit of work and figure out regulation and OT wins and count SO wins as ties...so, there, you've got a legit -- albeit more difficult -- comparison, and we don't have a problem). i don't have a strong opinion on whether OT should be 2(OTW) - 1 (OTL) or 3(OTW) - 0(OTL). so long as SOW is 2 points and SOL is 1 point i think it works.

i also like the idea of extending 4-on-4 OT or even adding a five minute 3-on-3 OT after the current 4-on-4. the games only go a bit longer, and because less players are on the ice, each player's TOI doesn't go up by a whole hell of a lot, but you're a lot more likely to get a legit winner.

as a final note, while i dislike the current 2- and 3-point game system, it can hardly be said that it is "unfair." you can argue theoretically that some team who has maybe two really good shootout specialists but an otherwise mediocre team might play for the shootout and pile up points from SOWs. but every team knows the deal and can put as much or as little effort into the SO as they choose, whether it be in practice time or what players they chose to sign (e.g., does a hudler-type player's value go up because he adds a shootout threat? maybe, but if that's part of the game everyone can chose to sign or not sign a player with that in mind). secondly, people always talk about "playing for overtime" or "playing for the shootout," and while i think there might be some validity to that, if any and every team was capable of pressing the "play-boring-hockey-in-which-no-one-is-guaranteed-to-score-ever," then every game would end 1-0. sure, you can play the trap and not really try to score in the waning minutes of a tie game, but there's nothing to say that that's going to work. and unless you're playing an out-of-conference team that you don't care about, every team has something to lose by letting the other team get to OT except in the most extreme or late-season situations in which a bottom-feeding getting an extra point makes no difference. if a team is playing a division rival in a close points race (see: our division) NO coach is going to be like, "aw, yeah, just give 'em the extra point, so long as we get one." if we're playing chicago, the LAST thing babs wants is them getting ANY points.

so, yeah, it's a bummer when two division rivals generate three points in a single game when the wings only have an opportunity to get two points for themselves. but the same thing happens FOR us that happens against us. this season, while we're scraping for playoff position, i find myself being really thankful when we make it into overtime: each one of those points is big. so, yeah, i think it should be changed, but i don't think that it can really be said to be "unfair" to any team over any other.

Edited January 3, 2010 by stormboy

[Paolino99 5]

For me:

Shootout = NOOOOOOO

Overtime= 5 vs 5, 10 minutes

Win in regulation = 2 pts ( i agree also 3 pts)

Win in overtime = 2 pts

Loss in regulation = 0 pts

Loss in overtime = 0 pts (i agree also 1 pt)

[Tane 17]

The best system IMO is:

Regulation, OT, SO Win = 2 points

SO loss = 1 point

OT, Regulation loss = 0 points

Just make OT an extra 5 min of regular time, no extra point.

Terrible.

The Whole Point of the Overtime Loss = 1 Point was so teams didn't play trap hockey back and forth and take the Guarenteed 1 point for a tie instead of playing to win. When it was just 1 point for a tie, both teams in OT would play super boring/conservative hockey because they didn't want to make any mistakes and leave the game with nothing. Overtime Sucked. This would provide you with the same lackluster OT's that they were rying to avoid. Neither team would try in OT, let it go to a shootout where you've guarenteed your point, and play from there. Back to square 1 with nobody trying to win games in OT

By Giving both teams an automatic point, and rewarding a bonus 1 point for winning the game, teams had nothing to lose, and could play balls to the wall and try and get the win. It was a Great concept.

But now with a Shhotout instead of a tie, there is no need for the Loser point. Both teams have to play to win now, anyways. There is no settling for a tie. The Extra point is no longer relevant and shoulnd't be in the game anymore

2 points for a win

0 for a Loss

.

In fact, you don't really even NEED points anymore, it'll just come down to wins and losses. No need for the Extra point.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Tane

[stormboy 47]

Terrible.

The Whole Point of the Overtime Loss = 1 Point was so teams didn't play trap hockey back and forth and take the Guarenteed 1 point for a tie instead of playing to win. When it was just 1 point for a tie, both teams in OT would play super boring/conservative hockey because they didn't want to make any mistakes and leave the game with nothing. Overtime Sucked. This would provide you with the same lackluster OT's that they were rying to avoid. Neither team would try in OT, let it go to a shootout where you've guarenteed your point, and play from there. Back to square 1 with nobody trying to win games in OT

By Giving both teams an automatic point, and rewarding a bonus 1 point for winning the game, teams had nothing to lose, and could play balls to the wall and try and get the win. It was a Great concept.

But now with a Shhotout instead of a tie, there is no need for the Loser point. Both teams have to play to win now, anyways. There is no settling for a tie. The Extra point is no longer relevant and shoulnd't be in the game anymore

2 points for a win

0 for a Loss

.

In fact, you don't really even NEED points anymore, it'll just come down to wins and losses. No need for the Extra point.

i actually pretty ******* agree with this post. if the NHL has 1-1 ties and 2-0 W/L regardless of OT or regulation, once you get to OT, why would a defenseman pinch up? would he risk a breakaway that could result in zero points for a team that has gone stroke-for-stroke with the other team through 63 minutes of play? not likely. better play it safe and get the one point for the tie rather than risk getting nothing. and this exciting "play-to-win" hockey everyone seems to want actually goes out the window.

tane makes a good point here: DET and CHI get to OT; both have a point, but both want that one extra for getting the win. when it's 4-on-4, of course both teams are going to go "balls to the walls" go grab that point. unless you REALLY REALLY REALLY believe that your team has a major edge in shootouts, you HAVE to try to get that point in OT. i think that makes for better OTs, like tane said, than when you have everything to lose in OT.

and tane, i see your point all the way up to the shootout, which is where, for me, all of this breaks down. the SO isn't going to go away because of the business of the NHL. and while i like the 2/0 W/L idea, it seems absurd to me that if two teams are completely even through 65 minutes of hockey, that it's going to go all-or-nothing in something as flukey and individual as the shootout. that's my only problem. if DET has played a totally even game with CHI for 65 minutes and then for CHI to get 2 points simply because kane's move happened to fool ozzie on a free, undeserved breakaway this one time, without the rest of the hockey team even on the ice, and for DET to get zero points, as if they'd lost in regulation from real goals, just seems like total bulls*** to me. i don't think you can have an all-or-nothing swing based on the shootout, which is why the NHL has the extra point system right now.

that's why i like the 3-0 W-L / 2-1 OTW-OTL or SOW-SOL system. win in regulation = all the points. you gotta limp for a win, you deserve less, but still more than the team to limped their way into a longer loss. i'd even go, like i said before, 3-0 pts for an OTW/OTL and save the 2-1 split for SOW-SOL. that way, legit hockey win = all the points & flukey-but-very-entertaining SOW-SOL = 2-1 pts.

[stormboy 47]

and just a little more food for thought regarding the shootout.

if the NHL went to a 2-1 split for SOs only, with reg and OT games being 3-0 pts-wise, do you think that would make the SO any less exciting from a fan perspective? sure, we might ***** on LGW about CHI stealing a point from us simply because they got to the shootout last night, but when cleary scores the winning goal or when ozzie makes the game-winning save, we're going to be cheering and jumping up and down. yeah, we might know intellectually that we could have gotten two more points in the standings if we'd won it in OT, but when i hear ken daniels yell "SAVE OSGOOD! RED WINGS WIN!" and know that we still moved up in the standings over our opponent, that's still great for me as a fan. and i might even admit that CHI deserved 1/3 of the points for having matched us evenly all the way.

[Reis710 3]

I don't think there should be 3 points awarded for a win.

I am a huge soccer fan and in a game like soccer there are much less games and depending on the league other then the top 3-4 teams and the bottom 3-4, there usually isnt much compeition for the middle of the back.

In the NHL there are too many games to play for 3 points to be awarded. 2 points makes it very exciting and very tight with teams competing for playoffs look at the west, 3rd to 10th is a 7 point difference. I think 2 points for a win is fine when you play 82 games.

Loses, now it doesn't matter how many extra minutes you play, you should never be awarded for a loss. I think the 1 point for an OTL is absolutely ridiculous!

[lfd250 1]

How about:

Win 2 points

Loss 0 points.

Play hard and earn your points. This s*** of not playing hard at the end of the game because you both get a point. BS.

Take it away:

1. Chi +1

2. SJ -1

3. Pho + 1

4. Nash +2

5. Van +2

6. Col -3

7. Calg -2

8. LA -

9. Det -

10. Min + 1

11. Dal -1

12. St Louis -

13. Anh -

14. Edm +1

15. Colu -1

Now I know it doesn't take into consideration winning your conference.

PLAY TO WIN NOT TIE

[Blood On The Ice 15]

2 points win

1 point tie

0 points loss

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Get rid of the shootoout.

A win in regulation or OT is 2 points. OT will be 4 on 4 for five minutes.

A loss either in regulation or OT is 0 points.

Basically, they need to go back to how it was.

[Finnish Wing 110]

2 points win

1 point tie

0 points loss

This is the best system if people are okay with ties. If not then the system in the OP is the best.

The main thing is that there should always be the same amount of points on the line, no matter if the game goes to the OT or not.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

My thoughts on what OT losers should receive.

"you get nothing! You lose! good day sir."

[Finnish Wing 110]

Personally I don't think that the 3-point system is a good idea. The reason is very simple: there will be a bigger points difference between the teams...

Yeah, but that isn't how the point system should be build. It should be build so that you get what you deserve.

For the 345685th time:

Win is better than OT win. OT win is better than OT loss. OT loss is better than loss.

[Guest CaliWingsNut]

Yeah, but that isn't how the point system should be build. It should be build so that you get what you deserve.

For the 345685th time:

Win is better than OT win. OT win is better than OT loss. OT loss is better than loss.

Again.... You Lose....

[stuck in socal 56]

Everyone will also have complaints anyways. Just keep the current system.