I have seen two different blogs now exhorting the idea I posted in two different random thoughts blogs. It has been praised and ridiculed. I'd like to explain exactly what my rationale is, and why I suggested the points levels in the manner which I described.
The System would be:
2 Standings Points for a regulation or OT win
1 Standings Point for a shoot out win
0 Standings Points for a loss
The NHL has toyed with a way to settle ties for most of the Bettman era. It was thought that games that were tied late in the third would be played more aggressively if they awarded a second point for an OT win and the loser kept the point for a regulation tie. The idea was to try and force teams that were busy trapping to play to win rather than playing to not lose.
That still didn't work exactly, so they added shootouts. I am fine with ties, and have issues with a gimmick deciding a hockey game. However, the shootout is popular, and I have always said that you do not eliminate things that make every fan in the building stand up and cheer. So, the shootout can stay.
However, I have noticed that the old pattern is reappearing-late in OT, some teams seem to pull it back a little and play to get to a shootout. That makes for boring hockey, when it should be really exciting.
That is why my idea was formulated and blogged about.
I think a regulation win is the best thing you can achieve. It comes from winning a hockey game. An OT win is almost as good and should be worth the same amount of points. Two points is a fair reward for winning a game in either manner.
Shootouts are, despite the entertainment value, a gimmick. There is no way that two teams should play hockey for 65 minutes, then settle the matter with a gimmick-and have that gimmick count as much as a regular win. Winning a shootout should NEVER be as valuable as winning a hockey game.
Now, getting nothing for a loss...why the Hell should anyone get anything for losing a game? "But we were tied at the end of regulation," is what some will say. To that I say BFD. You shouldn't get points for losing a game under any circumstances. You shouldn't get points for being tied at the end of regulation. You want more excitement? Force defense first coaches to go after wins, instead of playing to not lose.
I think that the final goal at the end of the day is to have the most exciting, most pure game of hockey we can possibly have. I think a point for losing a game-or just getting to regulation without a loss, and rewarding a win in a gimmick as much as a real game takes away that purity and encourages teams to play to not lose.