U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Hockey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-05-2011, 11:25 AM
 
Location: San Jose
1,858 posts, read 2,094,179 times
Reputation: 540

Advertisements

I thought of this while reading the Sharks thread and a discussion of whether or not a team really has a winning season when you get 1 point for an OT loss.

This reminded of a discussion I read about several years ago where it was proposed that the following be implemented:

3 points regulation win
2 points OT win
1 point OT loss
0 points regualation loss

All games would be 3 point games rather than only OT games being 3 pointers.

I think Ron Wilson was a proponent of this.

I like the idea of making all games 3 point games.

What do you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-05-2011, 12:00 PM
 
5,116 posts, read 4,627,188 times
Reputation: 4375
That's the scoring system used for hockey in the Winter Olympics. I always thought that it was better than the current NHL points system.

Gary Bettman prefers the current point system (2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie or an overtime loss) as it awards those teams who can play defensively and eke out ties and overtime losses in the regular season. Because of the extra point awarded, more teams are still in contention for a playoff spot later in the season than they would be under the Olympic points system.

I definitely believe that playoff-eliminated teams in weaker markets might be playing to almost empty arenas during the months of March and April.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2011, 07:00 AM
 
Location: Washington state
7,208 posts, read 8,382,044 times
Reputation: 1892
Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist, but I wouldn't mind going back to the way it used to be. Remember the OT/SO along with the loser point was brought in primarily just to spice things up for the casual fan. Unfortunately in the process it has made sort of a mockery of the game. Because of the present point system, last year in the West, only 3 teams (Columbus, Colorado, Edmonton) out of 15 finished below the NHL's version of .500...that's ridiculous and makes no sense..

Why should a team with less regulation wins finish higher in the standings or make the playoffs over the team with more just because they have either a lot of wins via SO/OT or a lot of loser points? I liked it when OTs were reserved exclusively for the playoffs anyway. Made them just a little more special.

I don't mind ties, and in lieu of going back to the old way, I think a good system would be to follow soccer's example and give 3 points for a win and and 1 for the tie. That way, teams would be much more motivated to go for the win.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2011, 11:22 AM
 
Location: San Jose
1,858 posts, read 2,094,179 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton View Post
Maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist, but I wouldn't mind going back to the way it used to be. Remember the OT/SO along with the loser point was brought in primarily just to spice things up for the casual fan. Unfortunately in the process it has made sort of a mockery of the game. Because of the present point system, last year in the West, only 3 teams (Columbus, Colorado, Edmonton) out of 15 finished below the NHL's version of .500...that's ridiculous and makes no sense..

Why should a team with less regulation wins finish higher in the standings or make the playoffs over the team with more just because they have either a lot of wins via SO/OT or a lot of loser points? I liked it when OTs were reserved exclusively for the playoffs anyway. Made them just a little more special.

I don't mind ties, and in lieu of going back to the old way, I think a good system would be to follow soccer's example and give 3 points for a win and and 1 for the tie. That way, teams would be much more motivated to go for the win.
I don't know about going back to the old way where a tie is 1 and that's it. I've been going to hockey games since 1962 and I have to say, I really didn't like going to a game only to see a tie. Just my opinion...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2011, 03:28 PM
 
Location: Metro Washington DC
13,107 posts, read 19,948,714 times
Reputation: 7723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagger View Post
I've been going to hockey games since 1962 and I have to say, I really didn't like going to a game only to see a tie. Just my opinion...
That's why the 3 point system is better. Currently, are satisfied to play to a tie since they have a chance to win a shootout. With the 3 point system they play to win in regulation since it means more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2011, 07:51 PM
 
Location: San Jose
1,858 posts, read 2,094,179 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkf747 View Post
That's why the 3 point system is better. Currently, are satisfied to play to a tie since they have a chance to win a shootout. With the 3 point system they play to win in regulation since it means more.
I agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Sweden
23,762 posts, read 65,880,092 times
Reputation: 18329
Two points for a win,one point for a tie and no pointless ot's until the playoffs when they matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2011, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
4,969 posts, read 7,320,559 times
Reputation: 1721
I would mind straight ties, maybe not ties, where you at least play a 5 minute ot....but I remember back in the 70's one team made the playoffs by having more ties than losses.
I like the 3, 2, 1, ...zero idea, but yes, that could hurt attendance in towns like Dallas, Columbus and Carolina, teams that seem to be almost in the playoffs, but knocked out on the last weekend of the season.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 01:23 PM
 
Location: NY
9,072 posts, read 15,044,339 times
Reputation: 11514
I'd can the point system.

Just go by win/loss record. You win in OT you get the win. You lose... then you lose. Like just about any other sport.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2011, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Metro Washington DC
13,107 posts, read 19,948,714 times
Reputation: 7723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Checkered24 View Post
I'd can the point system.

Just go by win/loss record. You win in OT you get the win. You lose... then you lose. Like just about any other sport.
That's the old point system. Nothing wrong with that though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Hockey
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top