I don't have a problem with the current system but if asked on my thoughts for changing it:
Three points for a win, one for a tie, zero for a loss. No overtime through regular season.
Yeah we want to see a winner but the 3 points for the win instead of 2 should be the incentive for the home team (typically the team pushing to break a tie and go for the win) to get the extra 2 points or the 3 point swing against a division foe.
There are a lot of games in each season so that would make a lot of points available but the idea is to reward a win, accept a good tie with a smaller reward and make the loser sit idle without points.
I will say, though, that the 2 win, 1 tie or loser in tie, 0 for regulation loss fits more with the NHL philosophy of griding out the season in some cases right to the very end; much like the best of seven to the Stanley Cup.
I like the concept of all games having the same worth, no matter how they are won or lost. There are two ways to do that, I think:
1) three points per game, with a regulation win worth the full points and overtime and shootout wins being worth two to the winner and one to the loser. If the loser is given a point for getting to overtime, then it makes sense to me that the winner should be docked one point for allowing that to happen;
2) the other way to do it that seems fair to me is as baseball does it: wins are wins, nothing extra for going past nine innings - winner take all. Forget about points, altogether, and base everything on winning percentage.
Both go against tradition and make historical perspective more difficult, but that's the way I 'd like to see it changed, anyway.
Yeah I understand the whole historical value part to it. I was just trying to get a sense for how to lessen the amount of "coasting" at the end of a tied game. If we can make it more of a push for a win clear to the horn I think that the game as a whole will be better for it.
I want the shootout to die a quick painless death and be quickly forgotten. It is a bastardization of the game and completely disregards the TEAM element of hockey. Hockey is a team sport and the best team should be awarded the points, not the team with the three best breakaway shooters and 1-on-1 goalie.
However, I realize that for whatever reason a large portion of "casual-fan" Americans are seemingly incapable of acccepting an honorable tie as a result, so I wouldn't mind a 5min of 4-on-4 then 5min of 3-on-3 then, if necessary, the shootout. This would make the shootout harder to get to, and as we saw in the 2008 young stars game, 3-on- results in lots of goals and the goalies (Manny Legace's live comments during the game) feel it is a better representation of team play.
I want the shootout to die a quick painless death and be quickly forgotten. It is a bastardization of the game and completely disregards the TEAM element of hockey. Hockey is a team sport and the best team should be awarded the points, not the team with the three best breakaway shooters and 1-on-1 goalie.
However, I realize that for whatever reason a large portion of "casual-fan" Americans are seemingly incapable of acccepting an honorable tie as a result, so I wouldn't mind a 5min of 4-on-4 then 5min of 3-on-3 then, if necessary, the shootout. This would make the shootout harder to get to, and as we saw in the 2008 young stars game, 3-on- results in lots of goals and the goalies (Manny Legace's live comments during the game) feel it is a better representation of team play.
You like some are still missing what having the higher points for a regulation win will accomplish. Giving them more motivation to go for it in regulation will assuredly mean less OT games which will mean less shootouts. It is simple logic. All fans would be more pleased while still having a compromise to make sure the game is more marketable in the US.
