GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 (edited) Funny you guys should bring this up. Nate Silver actually just took a look at this approach: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-radical-proposal-to-destroy-the-nhls-loser-point/ Here's my problem with that. 3 on 3 is just like a shootout. A silly gimmick to manufacture an extra point. I mean, how often do you see a 3 on 3 in a real game situation? Hardly ever. Why would you have a system where a team that loses a 3 on 3 gets zero points? That would be cruel and absurd. Edited April 9, 2015 by GMRwings1983 1 kipwinger reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,755 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 Would be a nightmare for injuries and wear and tear. Pretty sure the players wouldn't want to play that many minutes extra during the season. If they do this, they'd need to shorten the season to 70 games (which owners would never allow because they'd lose revenue). I don't think so, especially for the 10min OT idea. Here are the calculations of extra time played if they went to a 10min or 20min OT. This year Detroit played in 25 OT/SO games this year. If ALL the games went the entire 10min (an extra 5min per game), that would add an extra 125 min of game time, which is equivalent to 2 extra games per year. If you went to 20min OT, that would be an extra 6 games. Maybe I can see your argument with the 20min OT, but 2 extra games (and that's only if EVERY game went the full 10min) is by no means a nightmare. Plus, a large portion of those games would end mid OT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 2 points for a win in either regulation or OT. No points for OT loss. No shootouts. 5 on 5 OT. I've been saying this for years and refuse to go back on it. I like the pre-1999 system, ties and all. I like the pre-1999 system too, but I don't think they'll ever go back to it. I've been saying for years make every game 3 points, 3 for a regulation win, 2 for a OT or SO win, and 1 for a OT or SO loss. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crashnburnluder 385 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 The problem with the "loser" point is simple. At some point teams are playing for the free point then trying to win the game. The loser point was added because of boring OT. They added the point and all it did was make teams buckle down and try to get to OT. Even in a 3 point system I'm not going all out for the extra point when I run the risk of not getting any points at all, simple as that. There should never be a time in a game where ur guaranteed everything. It should be to only play for the win, not to lose but still get something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sleepwalker 512 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 I think the current system is OK. If anything, get rid of the loser point instead of making every game worth 3 points. I also disagree that a 3 point system would bring on a lockout. Lockouts after the expiration of every CBA are a guaranteed inevitability at this point. Regardless of what you do or don't do, the lockout will still happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,794 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 BTW, The 1977 Montreal Canadiens finished 60-8-12, and that was before the NHL went to overtimes! There's a record that will never be broken. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted April 9, 2015 My rebuttal to this qualm is pretty basic. As most of us are aware, if you get rid of 3 point games, less teams stay in the hunt for the playoffs as the season wears on. This leads to teams, and more importantly fans, realizing their season is over. Less fan interest in the last 20-30 games of the season results in less tickets being bought, therefore, less overall revenue for teams is generated. When less revenue is generated, owners ***** and moan that they are unable to afford buying another beach house for their mistresses to stay at. Guess what we get at that junction. Yup, more lockouts. A vote against the 3 point system is a vote for future lockouts. That isn't really true though. No matter what the scoring system, straight W/L, 3-2-1 system, or going back to ties, there'd still be close races. Just about everything that's undecided now is still undecided in any system. In some cases a race may end earlier, but in some cases it'd be the opposite. For example, if you went to just W-L record, the playoff race in the West would be over but in the East Columbus would still be alive. There's really no good argument in favor of the loser point, aside from maybe, "it doesn't really matter so why bother changing it". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
