The everso disputed point system
View Single Post
10-08-2008, 09:22 AM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Originally Posted by
Taking an Idea from the Rugger-Buggers Way Down South
This may seem way offside, and probably will never be implicated in the NHL, but what would you guys (and gals) think about awarding an extra-point for those teams that score a certain amount of goals (say 4 or 5?). We already give an extra point for keeping it close, why not reward teams for opening it up and going for goals.
This is an idea that was adopted in Rugby in the mid-nineties when increased professionalism resulted in better more well-trained players playing more sophisticated defensive systems and therefore decreasing scoring, similar to the increased trend for trapping in the NHL in the 1990s. Games were increasingly boring and less tries (tries=touchdowns in NFL) were being scored. To improve the game for the fans (and arguably the players) tournaments in Australia, South Africa and New Zealand started rewarding teams that scored 4 or more tries, whether they won or not. Additionally, and like hockey, a bonus point is also awarded for teams that lose but keep the game close (lose by 7 points or less). For reference a try is probably equal or more difficult to score than a goal in ice hockey.
If the NHL is already awarding points for keeping the game close, and therefore disrupting the mythical 'all games should be worth an equal amount of points' rule, why not award extra points for playing exciting, high-scoring hockey? And please don't respond with '2-1 games can be the most exciting games you will ever see.' I know this is true but only if the scoring chances are high, this rule would increase teams impetus and desire to create scoring chances.
SO, let's say we create a '5 goal bonus point' wherein teams that score 5 goals, win or lose, get an extra point. This would reward the team that lost 7-5 in regulation just as much as a team that lost 1-0 in overtime. Don't you think a team that scores 5 goals in a game is as worthy of a point as a team that scores none? Or the team that is losing 7-3 with 10 minutes to go in the third has inspiration to open it up and get those two goals to salvage a point from the game while also keeping the fans in the seats because they know there will be drama until the last minute while their team goes for the point.
While rugby and hockey are two very different sports I think they share a few similarities, namely I am a huge fan of both, both have gained popularity in the last century and have proud fans in many nations around the world (albeit different nations). Similarly they are fast sports that involve quick decisions on offense and brutal hits on defense. The bonus point rule was initially questioned by rugby purists, and still is, but has now been accepted around the world in almost all major rugby leagues and tournaments (but obviously not in the playoffs). The game is now more exciting and the teams that play the most exciting rugby are rewarded. And this does not come at the expense of defense, anyone who watches the New Zealand All Blacks or France play knows that you can be exciting on offense and still tight defensively, just like the Red Wings and the Habs
So what do you guys think?
I like the main focus of the idea, yet this would be soooooo confusing to newbies. it might work, but I don't see the league going that way.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ozymandias