View Single Post
03-02-2012, 01:41 PM
Registered User
piqued's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 32,014
vCash: 3722
Originally Posted by CorwiN View Post
See, I think a good compromise position would be no points for a shootout win, but that team's fans get a coupon for a free taco or something. Resolution to game, no silly shootout messing up the standings, everyone's happy.
Hahaha. That was so embarrassing when they were announcing the stupid taco coupon or whatever while Letang was laying on the ice.
Originally Posted by txomisc View Post
I'd be giving the team a point for not losing the actual game which is vastly more important than the shootout. Call it a tie with a bonus point for winning the shootout if there must be a shootout. If a shootout win isnt as positive as a regular win a shootout loss shouldnt be as negative as a regular loss.
We're just coming at this from different philosophies. I hate ties. I hate everything about them. I want to remove all vestiges of that kind of thinking from the sport. Playing your opponent to a standstill is not a good thing, to me.
Originally Posted by UnholyPrince View Post
The problem with that system is you still have games that are worth varying degrees of points. You can have a 3 point game, a 2 point game, or a 1 point game. That creates variance within the system and leads to the same problem we have now, some games are 2 points into the system, others are 3.
But why is variance a problem? I don't understand. It's only a problem if it creates an imbalance toward /incentive for safe, conservative play, which is what we have now.

piqued is offline   Reply With Quote