Home HockeyBuzz Register Login
"Fantasy Puck Heads (www.fantasypuckheads.com)"
Detroit, MI • United States • 44 Years Old • Male
Okay, I've had it with this 1pt for losing in OT/Shoot out. Officially, there are only 6 teams with losing records in the NHL. This is a joke. The NHL point system must go. I understand that they wanted to do away with ties. But this OTL crap is out of hand.

Gary Bettman and the rest of these idiots who think losing in OT/Shoot out is worth a point should be shot. Losers shouldn't be rewarded with points. Also, Winners shouldn't be rewarded with 2pt because they won in a shoot out.

Here is how a see it.

2 pts for a Victory (Regulation or OT)
0 pts for a Loser (Regulation or OT)
1 pts for a Victory by shootout.

I believed that it would also make teams try even harder to win the game while the game was being played. Instead of getting to this gimmick we call Shoot Out.
It also stops rewarding teams free points for making it to OT. Which mean teams would have to play even harder to get their points.
Filed Under:   Standings   Rules   NHL   Gary Bettman   OT   Shootout   redwings  
January 15, 2008 12:40 PM ET | Delete
I agree 100%, the NHL has the most confusing standings of any sport I dont understand how teams can have a record of say 15-15-6 and claim to be .500? even though they have only actually won 15 of the 21 games played...its confusing and dumb. I think they should just basically go to 2 points for a win and nothing for a loss...I dont care if you win in regulation,overtime or Shootout, if you win,great 2 points for you, if you lose, sorry you LOST therefore no points.
January 15, 2008 12:58 PM ET | Delete
Well, or they could change the system altogether... I'm in full support of EVERY game being worth three points, but the breakdown would be like this... 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, and 1 point for an overtime/shootout loss. Since we don't have ties anymore, there is no need for it to be an even number of points awarded. We no longer need to worry about splitting. I think overtime/shootout wins/losses go both ways. For one, the team that won, all the same, couldn't clinch it in regulation, so they don't deserve all three points. Also, the team that lost, at the least, managed to force it to overtime/shootout, and should steal one point from the winner.
January 15, 2008 1:00 PM ET | Delete
I think we should get rid of the shootout, though, and stick with 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie. Obviously, nothing for a loss. The idea of a skill challenge where three or four individuals determine the teams' result... Lame, and not really sportsmanlike...
January 15, 2008 1:15 PM ET | Delete
Damnit, you stole my idea!!!...http://my.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?user_id=3814
January 15, 2008 1:22 PM ET | Delete
meckwr28, great idea that I have posted on this board before with no response from hockey traditional dead heads. Not one person said great or crap. I believe it would straighten out this mess that the extra point has caused. I call the 3 point win a QUALITY win, because that is what you are supposed to do in sports, win it in regulation.
January 15, 2008 1:28 PM ET | Delete
I agree, the loser point should go. It lends itself to misleading interpretations like what happened with the Isles recently. According to the experts, the were on a slide, having lost 4 in a row (3 in OT.) Now after two wins, they're being praised as being on a roll, having points in 10 of their last 12. IMHO, the shootout must go... I hate seeing 65 minutes of great hockey be decided by a skills competition that gives no reflection on what actually happened in the game. Give me 10 minutes of 4-4, then call it a draw.
January 15, 2008 1:46 PM ET | Delete
Well, I'm in full support of the idea. I don't mean to take credit for the idea, as I'm sure I wasn't the first to think of it.
January 15, 2008 3:24 PM ET | Delete
Agree, hate the loser point. I could live with your system. It's better than what we have now but I would prefer every game be equal in value - 2 points to the winner, regulation, OT or SO, period.
January 15, 2008 3:24 PM ET | Delete
I guess that means two of us, only many more millions to go.
January 15, 2008 3:39 PM ET | Delete
Only downside I see to this is that it IS NOT A LOSER POINT.Both teams get one point for a tie. After that, teams battle for the extra point. That simple.
January 15, 2008 3:42 PM ET | Delete
Extra points are the problem. Last year the Sharks were the best team in the Pacific based on quality wins with Anaheim second. Does not mean the Ducks would have not won the Cup, as they surely deserved, but they would have been a lower seed with SJ playing as third seed. Each game should have the same value.
January 15, 2008 4:40 PM ET | Delete
Well, a world record first, but I have to say I agree with a Wings fan. The extra point served a purpose when a tie was still possible in order to get them to "play to win" rather than "play to not lose." But now that you either win or lose, the point needs to go. No rewards for losing.
January 15, 2008 5:50 PM ET | Delete
Thanks everyone for your comments. I didn't expect this much of a response. One thing is clear, Most of us agree the current system isn't so great.
January 15, 2008 6:08 PM ET | Delete
I only gave 1pt for shoot out victory for the sole purpose of it not being a game victory.
January 15, 2008 8:17 PM ET | Delete
Great idea but unfortunately the NHL thinks new fans will come to watch the shootout , and if they think it makes money and keeps fans thinking their teams still have a chance then it will be here to stay.
January 15, 2008 11:21 PM ET | Delete
Look folks, we all agree that an unbalanced schedule does not work real well, so how does an unbalanced scoring system work. I would drop the shootout in a heartbeat, but I'm afraid due to the lunatic fringe that it is here to stay. I'm telling you that the three point system would satisfy all of the arguements both for OT and SO, and keep the traditionalist (like me) happy.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment.