It's Time to Change the NHL Points System
Posted 5:24 PM ET | Comments 0
Okay, now that another NHL regular season has come to a close, we can once again revisit the flawed way in which the NHL awards points for wins and OTL losses on a night by night basis. This is NOT a blog intended to argue the pros and cons of the shootout. I know 90%+ of "true" hockey fans despise the SO. For the record, I'm 46, have watched and played hockey for the better part of 40 years, consider myself an avid follower of the sport and am fine with the SO. For the regular season ONLY. I'm sure the SO will forever be debated, but Bettman introduced it and 30 knowledeable Governors approved it, and it's here for the foreseeable future.
The problem, as I see it, is that on any given night there are games with 2 points being awarded and others with 3. This is inequitable and I think I have a solution. It's not anything new, and has been discussed on these boards in length, in the past. What I did do however is crunch the numbers and lay them out in an easy to read format so you can see what a 3-2-1 points system would look like if adopted. In this example I am suggesting 3 points for a regulation OR 5 minute OT win, 2 points for a SO win and 1 point for a SO loss. This means that a 60 minute regulation game that ends in a tie would have no points awarded to either team. I understand that some people may not like that, but to me, OT is just a short extension of the regulation game to see if it can still be decided by playing 4 on 4 "hockey" before going to the SO. Nothing has been decided yet. The other major sports don't award points to teams tied after regulation time, why should the NHL? If a team scores in OT then great, they win the game and get 3 points. If it's still tied after the 5 minute OT and goes to the SO then the SO winner would get 2 points and the SO loser would get 1.
Now there are some people who favor a winner take all attitude. Go back to the 2 points for a win no matter how it's decided. I personally don't see the Governors or the players ever agreeing to that. Who wants to travel across the continent, play 65 minutes of hockey and then go through a SO and possibly come away with zero points. It'll never happen. That's why I suggest the 3-2-1 formula. Now it could be modified to allow for 2 points to be awarded to the OT or SO winner and 1 point to the OT or SO loser, but I favor the former suggestion of 3 points for regulation or OT win. This will REALLY get teams hungry to go for the win before going to the SO. I don't know if there is that much of difference between teams that win in regulation versus teams that win in OT. To be honest, I'd be happy either way as it's still more equitable than what's going on right now.
In the following links you can see how the 3-2-1 formula would have affected the final regular season standings and seedings for each conference. In the Eastern Conference the Rangers would have got in and the Canadiens would have missed based on the large number of games they took to the SO. The Flyers and Bruins would both still qualify for the post-season but their seedings would have been reversed. In the Western Conference all the teams that made the playoffs would still have made the playoffs but the seedings would have been drastically altered with a team like the Predators being rewarded for more regulation and OT wins and a team like the Coyotes being knocked down a bit for having had so many games decided by the SO.
Of course adopting this new points formula means tossing the "points by a team in a single season" record out the window. But didn't that really happen the moment the NHL went to it's current OT/SO formula anyway? I don't think a lot of people really care about the points record or the President's trophy that much anyway. It's all about the second season. For me, I'd just like to see the seedings for that second season awarded more fairly and teams that win in regulation or OT rewarded accordingly.
What's your take?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/...RQ/s1600/EC+Standings.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/...3I/s1600/WC+Standings.jpg
The problem, as I see it, is that on any given night there are games with 2 points being awarded and others with 3. This is inequitable and I think I have a solution. It's not anything new, and has been discussed on these boards in length, in the past. What I did do however is crunch the numbers and lay them out in an easy to read format so you can see what a 3-2-1 points system would look like if adopted. In this example I am suggesting 3 points for a regulation OR 5 minute OT win, 2 points for a SO win and 1 point for a SO loss. This means that a 60 minute regulation game that ends in a tie would have no points awarded to either team. I understand that some people may not like that, but to me, OT is just a short extension of the regulation game to see if it can still be decided by playing 4 on 4 "hockey" before going to the SO. Nothing has been decided yet. The other major sports don't award points to teams tied after regulation time, why should the NHL? If a team scores in OT then great, they win the game and get 3 points. If it's still tied after the 5 minute OT and goes to the SO then the SO winner would get 2 points and the SO loser would get 1.
Now there are some people who favor a winner take all attitude. Go back to the 2 points for a win no matter how it's decided. I personally don't see the Governors or the players ever agreeing to that. Who wants to travel across the continent, play 65 minutes of hockey and then go through a SO and possibly come away with zero points. It'll never happen. That's why I suggest the 3-2-1 formula. Now it could be modified to allow for 2 points to be awarded to the OT or SO winner and 1 point to the OT or SO loser, but I favor the former suggestion of 3 points for regulation or OT win. This will REALLY get teams hungry to go for the win before going to the SO. I don't know if there is that much of difference between teams that win in regulation versus teams that win in OT. To be honest, I'd be happy either way as it's still more equitable than what's going on right now.
In the following links you can see how the 3-2-1 formula would have affected the final regular season standings and seedings for each conference. In the Eastern Conference the Rangers would have got in and the Canadiens would have missed based on the large number of games they took to the SO. The Flyers and Bruins would both still qualify for the post-season but their seedings would have been reversed. In the Western Conference all the teams that made the playoffs would still have made the playoffs but the seedings would have been drastically altered with a team like the Predators being rewarded for more regulation and OT wins and a team like the Coyotes being knocked down a bit for having had so many games decided by the SO.
Of course adopting this new points formula means tossing the "points by a team in a single season" record out the window. But didn't that really happen the moment the NHL went to it's current OT/SO formula anyway? I don't think a lot of people really care about the points record or the President's trophy that much anyway. It's all about the second season. For me, I'd just like to see the seedings for that second season awarded more fairly and teams that win in regulation or OT rewarded accordingly.
What's your take?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/...RQ/s1600/EC+Standings.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/...3I/s1600/WC+Standings.jpg