View Single Post
Old
03-02-2012, 12:53 PM
  #469
piqued
Global Moderator
shift
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 30,803
vCash: 27750
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnholyPrince View Post
It creates an unpredictable and unbalanced # of points in the system. When scoreboard watching you'll just hope every game goes to OT/SO. Its the reverse of what we have now, and you'll hear opinions that it invalidates a win. Or that the team that gets to OT still deserves something. I think it just takes one problem and flips it, creating new ones to solve the motivation issue.

I agree it creates incentive to finish in regulation or OT, but so does the Olympic system, without the random variance of what a game is "worth."
I'm just not seeing where you say why the imbalance is a bad thing. Shouldn't teams that are good enough to win in regulation get the lion's share of the points? Middling teams will be left in the dust. If your argument is that artificially-induced (via manipulation of the standings/point system) parity is good for the sport, then I can understand, although I would disagree.

I feel the Olympic system only gets half of the incentive issue correct. What's the more powerful motivator? The promise of an extra point or the fear of getting nothing? I would argue the fear.

piqued is online now   Reply With Quote