Home HockeyBuzz Register Login
Bringing Hexy Back • 42 Years Old • Male
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.
Filed Under:   Jsaq   OT   Shootouts   points  
January 17, 2008 6:53 PM ET | Delete
I don't mind ties either. However, I think if anything makes sense as they play the games now it should be 3 for reg win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss, 0 for reg loss. One thing I'm adamant about is all games being of equal point value. OT/SO games having more point value is just silly.
January 17, 2008 6:56 PM ET | Delete
OT/Shootout games, under this plan, would have less value, unless a team wins it in OT. I don't think a SO win should be worth as much as a OT win, and I don't think making it through regulation and an OT tied is worth half a win.
January 17, 2008 7:08 PM ET | Delete
But essentially you're leaving a team which played to a tie hockey game, regardless of the goofy keep-the-'fans'-happy OT/SO mentality, without any credit whatsoever.
January 17, 2008 7:21 PM ET | Delete
good job js I am one of the few people that like the system nowbut found your blog very informative. great job buddy
January 17, 2008 7:27 PM ET | Delete
JS, I'm in complete and total agreement with you...... whcih scares teh hell outta me....... ;-)
January 17, 2008 7:41 PM ET | Delete
I know Gforce, you shouldn't get any credit for a tie at the end of regulation. You did not win the game. No win, no reward.
January 17, 2008 7:48 PM ET | Delete
Ya I hear ya, but you didn't really WIN the hockey game by winning 4-4 in OT or a shootout. I like your idea better than the one in place for sure, but I still believe you gotta make all games equal points-wise, no? Isn't that the most maddening thing about the current system?
January 17, 2008 7:48 PM ET | Delete
Why even have the Shoot out count at all, 2 points for regulation/ot win, 0 points for a loss of any kind, 1 point each for a tie and if it results in a tie have 3 shooters each but dont count it in the standings.
January 17, 2008 7:50 PM ET | Delete
The fact that the shoot out is even part of the NHL causes me to hate Gary Bettman more and more...
January 17, 2008 7:53 PM ET | Delete
Honestly, the most maddening thing to me is having a shootout win count the same as a regulation win. I just can't reconsile a shootout win being equal to a win earned by playing hockey-with defensemen and forwards, not just shooter and goalie. Hell, make it a 5 on 5 OT for 10 minutes if you want to make it more fair. I'd just rather not reward mediocrity and force teams to play to win and take chances. Makes the game more exciting, because coaches don't have that point earned to fall back on.
January 17, 2008 7:56 PM ET | Delete
January 17, 2008 7:59 PM ET | Delete
OOPS, sorry for the blank. Ya I hate the shootout counting as a win, thus the 3 pts for reg win. If they have to use the stupid thing, they really need to downgrade its importance. That much we'll all agree to.
January 17, 2008 10:56 PM ET | Delete
I agree that a loss is worth ZERO points. Professional sports is about competition, so there's no point (pun unintended) in giving consolation points to the losers. That attitude is for youth sports which emphasize participation rather than winning.
January 18, 2008 12:38 AM ET | Delete
I agree with gforce there is something screwy with a system that makes certain games with 3 points and others only 2. If the shoot-out has to stay (shudder) then they need to adjust the point system. As for your original suggestion Jsaquella, I personally couldn't stomach giving an out and out win based on the friggin' shootout. How popular is this system really? I guess it's compelling - but is it really attracting people to the game in the US? I would think it would have the opposite effect and make the sport look even more like a sideshow. I'm really baffled by this. The media up here tells us that US fans just won't accept ties...is this true? What the hell is wrong with a tie? Some of the greatest games I've ever watched were ties - and deserved to end that way.
January 18, 2008 2:15 AM ET | Delete
Bill, I have never had a problem with ties, absolutely hate the shootout, and think that a game should be won or lost by playing the game, that is why I say that if a team wins a game in a shootout, it shouldn't get 2 points, just one. But I also have no issue with a game ending in a tie and each team getting 1 point. However, under Bettman, the shootout is as likely to be removed as ice.
January 18, 2008 8:25 AM ET | Delete
Nice job JS. I agree completely.
January 18, 2008 8:36 AM ET | Delete
personally i would like if instead of the shootout they moved to a 10 minute 4v4 overtime, which is then followed by 10 minute 3v3 overtimes. it would be like pond hockey style. this would likely appease the league, as it would be exciting with that much ice for skilled players to work with, but would also not take things down to a 1 on goalie level that i hate so much.
January 18, 2008 9:19 AM ET | Delete
ninja, I don't disagree, but you'd quickly end up with people (and TV affiliates) complaining about the length of some games. That's another reason the shootout came in, to keep the length of games tighter while eliminating ties.
January 18, 2008 9:40 AM ET | Delete
oh im well aware. so perhaps keep the 5 mionute 4v4, then have 3v3 overtimes after that. honestly in a 3v3 I dont think you would see it go past the 5 min mark. if any penalties are called, you can go down to a minimum of 2 skaters. i think its an idea to work with more or less, since i cant stand the shootouts.
January 18, 2008 11:16 AM ET | Delete
I like the point system. I am also a huge fan and raising the shoot out to 5 per team to start.
January 18, 2008 11:57 AM ET | Delete
Ties never bothered me. What bothered me was coaches playing for ties and not the win. So now we have shootouts and coaches are still playing for the tie. The only way to correct this is to give 0 points for losing. Whether that loss is in regulation, OT or shootout.No points for losers. Its as simple as that.
January 18, 2008 12:08 PM ET | Delete
What I really like about your idea is it simplifies the points system. We've had a lot of people jump on the band-wagon here in Anaheim and one for the hardest things is explaining the current points system. The perplexed look on their faces afterward is priceless! The best system though is to just let them play until someone wins as they do in the playoffs.
January 18, 2008 2:47 PM ET | Delete
I think it's interesting that so many people have posted on hockeybuzz generally that they were perfectly happy with ties. Of course, this is far from scientific survey...but does make me think that shoot-out is just another attempt to attract those illusive fans in the US hinterlands. Rayc16, you're right is frustrating to watch teams play for ties, now we're seeing teams playing for shoot-outs and - no doubt - devoting significant amounts of time in practice to them
January 18, 2008 3:59 PM ET | Delete
the more i look at this the more it makes sense. in the playoffs, do you get a "point" for losing in overtime? no. a loss is a loss.
January 18, 2008 5:12 PM ET | Delete
the only way to make the teams play hard all the way to the end of the game and through overtime is to eliminate all and any points for losing. Since they started giving one point for a tie, all teams have been playing not to lose, instead of to win. How many teams will keep playing not to lose if they know that 1 point isn't still going to be there for them? This will force all teams to go for the win and open things up. Doesn't matter how many points you give for regulation vs ot vs shootout wins...as long as the loser still gets ZERO!!!!! In football, baseball and basketball, there is no ties, and you play the game until there is a winner. Unfortunately, hockey is a different sport than those games and as we have seen in the playoffs, we can play a whole extra game before a goal is scored. So weather you make it 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 or use the shootout or whatever, you need to win the game and get all the points rewarded, and get nothing for a loss...trust me, that will make the ends of games more exciting for the winners, and ever more devistating for the losers....
January 18, 2008 9:31 PM ET | Delete
I'm an American and I just don't buy that US fans wont accept a tie, don't know where that came from but it's just another silly reason to hate us. No hockey fan I know likes the shootout. The fact that baseball and football and basketball are our foremost sports is a crying shame but they're deeply ingrained in our culture and I played them all with pleasure. Not having ties isn't going to change anything---- ever. Might as well keep the game traditional for those of us that dig it and hope that the fans increase in America by giving us the great sport it is.
January 18, 2008 11:47 PM ET | Delete
That I agree with `100% gforce. I have no issue with tie games, in fact it's compelling and I want to see games decided by playing the game. Some nights that means you get a tie game. But as long as Bettman is running the show, we'll have the gimmick.
January 19, 2008 3:11 AM ET | Delete
I agree with your last comments - gforce and jsaquella - 100%. Gimmicks like SO do more harm than good in the long run.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment.

Blog Archive