No Point Being a Loser - My Proposal
Posted 8:11 AM ET | Comments 5
The NHL features three ways a team can lose a regular season game -- and a team can collect a point in two of them. There is something wrong with that. I am proposing teams collect points in a new way starting next season.
If a team wins in regulation or overtime, it garners two points -- the same as now. If a team loses in regulation or overtime, it gets NO points. It lost.
If a game is scoreless after overtime, then there should only be one point on the line. It was a tied game, after all, that is now a three-man skills competition.
I bet teams would play more enthusiastically in the OT to get two points than wait for the measly one point of a shootout win. The NHL standings would feature the sensible heading, "W - L - SO". All losses would be in one column and a team with a lot of shootout and overtime losses would not be considered a .500 team just because it managed to lose after sixty minutes were up. The standings today are farcical in that regard.
I want to see the NHL get some integrity back and put more focus on the fact that hockey is a team game. I believe this proposal is a small step in that direction.
If a team wins in regulation or overtime, it garners two points -- the same as now. If a team loses in regulation or overtime, it gets NO points. It lost.
If a game is scoreless after overtime, then there should only be one point on the line. It was a tied game, after all, that is now a three-man skills competition.
I bet teams would play more enthusiastically in the OT to get two points than wait for the measly one point of a shootout win. The NHL standings would feature the sensible heading, "W - L - SO". All losses would be in one column and a team with a lot of shootout and overtime losses would not be considered a .500 team just because it managed to lose after sixty minutes were up. The standings today are farcical in that regard.
I want to see the NHL get some integrity back and put more focus on the fact that hockey is a team game. I believe this proposal is a small step in that direction.
I agree completely Skip! The only thing I will say is that OT last night was very exciting and I didn't get the feeling that either team was sitting back trying to get to the shootout, especially the Flyers since in their 41 year history i don't believe they've ever won one. Seriously! I respect Stevens for having the guts to put Giroux in there first, but what is it going to take for this team to learn how to win a shootout? Briere was terrible and for a "skill" player like him, he should be ashamed. I know, the puck hopped on him, whhaaaaa. They deserved to lose. That's it.
Completely agree. The system as it stands now is flawed, this way and with regards to Division leaders ending up in the top-3 seeds of their conference.. but that's a different story for a different blog, I suppose. My only problem with your argument is that you're basically making the OT period what I'm going to call a 'regulation extension', since there's no real difference between the point system and team record reflection of regulation time and the OT period. With your emphasis on the 'team game' wouldn't this be better? At the end of three there's a tie game, no points awarded yet. OT period commences, if a team wins, that team is awarded two points and a W, the other team gets no points and a loss. If it's still tied at the end of OT, both teams get a point in the standings, because, as a team, they accomplished something, forcing the SO, since obviously the teams are evenly matched. At the end of the SO, on team gets the final point, giving them 2 total, and a W. The loser walks away with that 1 point because of the entire teams effort during the game and a Shoot out loss. So new team W/L records would look like this - W - L - SL. Each win would mean they gained 2 points for the game, a loss would mean no gain, a shootout loss would mean one point gained because they got out of the OT period with a tie intact. This way, it addresses your problem of too many ways to lose while still gaining a point. You only get an extra point if your TEAM is able to carry the game to the shoot out.
SnoieIf the NHL still insists on the 1 point for an OT/SO loss, the best way to compensate is to award 3 point for a regulation win. All games are now 3 pointers. I believe the governors turned this down earlier this year but did not hear their rationale for doing so.
I think the owners shot it down because they like the standing to appear to be a close as possible to it appears that their teams are still in the playoff race. This way owners can sell more tickets late in the season - where otherwise their attendances would drop once the team fell out of the playoff race.I agree that if the league insists on awarding a point for an OT loss, then they have to give 3 points for a reg win. You cannot have differing amounts of points being distributed from game to game. I prefer to have a system where as you win you get 2 points, you lose (no matter when) you get NONE. Losers don't deserve points. And to go along with that I say 3-on-3 OT until we have a winner. Won't take too long - bet 1 game in 10 goes beyond the 5 minutes!
3pts for reg win...2pts for OT win.....1pt for OT loss