HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

The everso disputed point system

View Poll Results: Now what points system would be preferable in your opinion?
The present one (W-L-OTL-SOL) 16 37.21%
The pre-lockout (W-L-OTL-T) 5 11.63%
The old classic (W-L-T) 6 13.95%
The one point system (1 win = 1 point, that's all) 1 2.33%
Same as #4, except, 2 points for wins 4 9.30%
The three points system (see present thread) 7 16.28%
The Rugby system (see 2nd page of thread) 1 2.33%
An alternative to all those 3 6.98%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-07-2008, 04:09 PM
  #26
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Yes... Did you actually read my argument????

Case in point : Detroit, 2 years ago. Central division was awfully weak and regulation wins for Detroit, in 32 games, were often, more than any other team in the league. This means the advantage they already have of playing in a weak division would be extrapolated because of the three points system.

I thought you of all people would have the brains to understand my argument without me having to reexplain it. It seems, I might have been too subtle for you.

Same case with Carolina in 2005-2006.
You really are the moste insecure poster here. Is there any way you can argue without bringing into account the other person't brain, personality?

Geez..

And no, for the record, I didn't read any of your previous points. I was responding to someone else in this thread until your last post. Good point about the Wings though.

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 04:16 PM
  #27
estevao
Human Person
 
estevao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pullman, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,373
vCash: 500
I did all this the day the regular season ended. All systems imaginable were represented - there were about 18 in all.

Do a search on the NHL Talk page for "What If" and "Standings" and threads that I created

estevao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 04:32 PM
  #28
HabsoluteFate
Registered User
 
HabsoluteFate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackett View Post
make all the games worth the same amount of points. If you want to reward the teams for losing in the shootout, fine.... but if thats the case, make every game count for 3 points.

Why should one game be worth more points than another given game? That's bush league.

3 points for regulation win

2 points for OT win/Shootout win

1 point for OT Loss/Shootout Loss

0 points for Regulation loss.

At least this way, every nhl game is worth just as much as the next one.
its what i've been preaching ever since the loser point was introduced...teams "play it safe" when the 3rd period is 3/4 over thinking they will win it in OT....if your not going to get 3 points no matter what if you go to OT believe me teams will force the play and try to win it in regulation time....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic_Hab_Fan View Post
I argue that point because in above posts, this skews the goalie record books (and lose in OT mentality or a team can garner a win, again skewing old records)...call me old fashion.
Old fashioned....

adding the loser point screwed up the record books...and so did the shootout win. If the 3 point system really bugs you that much compare it this way:

150 point season in today's day and age is about the same as a 100 point season before....

so simple its crazy...


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-07-2008 at 06:21 PM.
HabsoluteFate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 04:42 PM
  #29
TheCH*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,060
vCash: 500
Every team plays with in the same point system, so thats as fair as it gets.

TheCH* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 04:56 PM
  #30
lamp9post
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by avim86 View Post
Getting 2 points rather then getting 1 point over your opponent isn't motivation enough? If professional athletes can't motivate themselves to win games then what are we doing here.
What if Montreal is playing a team from the West. Do they really care if that team gets a point? It doesn't affect the East standings at all. Likewise if Montreal plays a non-playoff team from the East. Does it really matter if Atlanta squeeks out a point? And in these circumstances both teams play for the point at the end of the third period. I agree that it matters for teams fighting for playoff positioning, but that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I am not going off topic, I am refuting your argument.

""No other league rewards losers like the NHL""

You did use the argument that no other league/sport did what the NHL does. What I am demonstrating to you is that hockey is not like the other sports and doesn't need to abide to similar rules as the other sports to be succesful.

Soccer does it BTW. And do you actually understand why soccer and hockey do it??

Because it is much harder to score in those sports, hence the chances to getting a tie is higher, and you want to reward the teams that get to a tie. That is the logic. And the inception of the SO to get a win in every game, made the use of the extra point even more useable.

And also, just the fact you say they reward "losers" proves how much you got the concept all wrong. They reward both teams for tying in regulation. The rest of the game decides the winner and gets an extra point.
The soccer and hockey models are different - soccer removes a point from the overall value of the game if it is a tie, where hockey adds a point to the overall value of the game if it is a tie.

In soccer, a win is 3 points, a tie is one each. If a team scores in extra time in soccer, they win all three points and the loser gets nothing. So a win in soccer makes the game worth 3 pts, a tie makes it worth 2.

In hockey, a regulation win is 2 points, an overtime result makes it worth three.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-07-2008 at 06:21 PM.
lamp9post is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 05:11 PM
  #31
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,103
vCash: 500
There is nothing to dispute.

If a team is not good enough to at least make it to OT they dont have the right to complain about the extra point.

You want that point make it to OT...plain and simple. Once you've at least tied the 60 minutes of regulation play then you've earned that point.


Stop calling it a god damn loser point. It's only a loser point to the teams who cant cant at least make a good fight for 60 minutes.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 07:03 PM
  #32
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
You really are the moste insecure poster here. Is there any way you can argue without bringing into account the other person't brain, personality?

Geez..

And no, for the record, I didn't read any of your previous points. I was responding to someone else in this thread until your last post. Good point about the Wings though.
Huh.... for your information, 1- you quoted my post that said just that, 2- I didn't question your brain or personality, wake up man, go check your post at 16:57, you respond to the post where I say : ""Good teams that are in weak divisions will get even more points, and this difference compared to other teams will be an advantage, a bigger one at that."", which is exactly what my example about the Red Wings demonstrates. Now put yourself in my place; you respond saying "No it doesn't give an advantage", you ignore this argument about the weaker division, and then you go out and explain to me the point distribution which I was already well aware and had nothing to do with the reason I said it would give a disadvantage.

Wouldn't you react and tell yourself... WTH?

The first part about "having the brain" is actually a compliment because I do say that I thought you would've understood what I was saying, so about being insecure, look at yourself in the mirror, bro.

Now don't tell me you were responding to another post, because you did quote me and you even use the same terminology I used and nobody else was talking about or using the terminology "advantage/disadvantage" caused by this system. You probably quickly read what I said and didn't get the thing about weaker division. Maybe I should've added the example about the Wings, maybe you should've taken more time to read what I said. Bygones?

3- Oh and the last part about being subtle.. was just a diss for last week's comment you made in the Beaker thread... I thought you would've got it.


Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 07:48 PM
  #33
HabsoluteFate
Registered User
 
HabsoluteFate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
There is nothing to dispute.

If a team is not good enough to at least make it to OT they dont have the right to complain about the extra point.

You want that point make it to OT...plain and simple. Once you've at least tied the 60 minutes of regulation play then you've earned that point.


Stop calling it a god damn loser point. It's only a loser point to the teams who cant cant at least make a good fight for 60 minutes.
hate to tell you....but it is a loser point

HabsoluteFate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2008, 09:51 PM
  #34
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsoluteFate View Post
hate to tell you....but it is a loser point
I disagree.

25 years ago there was no overtime.
After 60 minutes of play if the score was tied both teams earned one point.

Today after 60 minutes of play if the score is tied both teams earn one point.

They then fight for one extra point. The winner point.

How does this not make sense?


What happened in the middle where the winner of OT got 2 points and the loser 0 did not work. Both teams played the trap and didnt want to risk losing the point they had earned during the 60 minutes of regulation. That's why they changed the rules...the last few moments of the game and the whole OT provided zero offense.

znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 01:25 AM
  #35
Kriss E
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCH View Post
Every team plays with in the same point system, so thats as fair as it gets.
You clearly didn't get the point of this thread.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 04:34 AM
  #36
TheCH*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,060
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
You clearly didn't get the point of this thread.
Yes.

TheCH* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 05:05 AM
  #37
Sumoki Dachiba
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 168
vCash: 500
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?

Sumoki Dachiba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 08:30 AM
  #38
Lone Rogue
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,506
vCash: 500
A game of hockey is worth 2 points.

If you win the game, you take the 2 points.

If you lose the game, you get nothing, because there is only 2 points to compete for.

During the tie days, if you tied, you split said 2 points.

Today, if your team loses the game but had it tied for 60 minutes, you get a magical 1 point from this 2 point game that comes out of nowhere, to thank you for your hard work.

A shootout is supposed to break a tie. That means there is a winner and a loser. Yes, it is a loser point. Yes, it rewards teams for losing. It also encourages trap play. Why go hard offence at the end of the period when you are tied? You can always just get a point in OT/SO and hope for the best.

The fact is, what people miss, is that a shootout decides the game. A tie means the game is undecided. If you are playing after a game has been decided (like znk's argument), then the game is not over. Therefore, a shootout should decide the two points, not some ugly "winner" point as people are arguing.

Just remove the point system entirely. One point for a win, no points for a loss. Lose in Regulation, Overtime or Shootout, you get nothing. A team makes the playoffs based on their wins. Tiebreaker is goals scored.

Lone Rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 08:40 AM
  #39
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Huh.... for your information, 1- you quoted my post that said just that, 2- I didn't question your brain or personality, wake up man, go check your post at 16:57, you respond to the post where I say : ""Good teams that are in weak divisions will get even more points, and this difference compared to other teams will be an advantage, a bigger one at that."", which is exactly what my example about the Red Wings demonstrates. Now put yourself in my place; you respond saying "No it doesn't give an advantage", you ignore this argument about the weaker division, and then you go out and explain to me the point distribution which I was already well aware and had nothing to do with the reason I said it would give a disadvantage.

Wouldn't you react and tell yourself... WTH?

The first part about "having the brain" is actually a compliment because I do say that I thought you would've understood what I was saying, so about being insecure, look at yourself in the mirror, bro.

Now don't tell me you were responding to another post, because you did quote me and you even use the same terminology I used and nobody else was talking about or using the terminology "advantage/disadvantage" caused by this system. You probably quickly read what I said and didn't get the thing about weaker division. Maybe I should've added the example about the Wings, maybe you should've taken more time to read what I said. Bygones?

3- Oh and the last part about being subtle.. was just a diss for last week's comment you made in the Beaker thread... I thought you would've got it.

I just don't think its an appropriate way to argue.. and you do it often is all. But no worries dude.

In any case, your point about the advantage disadvantage doesn't change.


a 3 - 2 -1 - 0 system would be more fair than the current one because it eliminates the possibility of certain games being worth 3 points and certain games being worth 2.

If a team plays in a weak division, it changes very little, only in absolute value of points does the gap become bigger. But in fact, the relative difference between the teams does not change.

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:06 AM
  #40
Lone Rogue
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Windsor, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsOfSteel View Post
The thing is IMO you can't have a team going home with no point because they lost in a shootout
A shootout is not an exhibition event. It is a part of the game. Teams are already rewarded a point for winning a shootout, so I don't see why people have such a problem with the opposite (being rewarded nothing for a loss).

Lone Rogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:09 AM
  #41
Turbo
Registered User
 
Turbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Greys section 325
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
I just don't think its an appropriate way to argue.. and you do it often is all. But no worries dude.

In any case, your point about the advantage disadvantage doesn't change.


a 3 - 2 -1 - 0 system would be more fair than the current one because it eliminates the possibility of certain games being worth 3 points and certain games being worth 2.

If a team plays in a weak division, it changes very little, only in absolute value of points does the gap become bigger. But in fact, the relative difference between the teams does not change.
I actually really dislike the idea of the 3-2-1-0 point system as well. To me, it takes a flawed system and makes it flawed again, but in a new way - so doesn't really solve anything.

Instead of having some losses worth more than others, now we have some wins worth less than others. Why should a team battling in a hard fought match against an equally tough opponent get less points for his win because it was in OT or SO? In other words, why should a 4-3 win in OT for Montreal against Pittsburgh be worth less than a 5-0 blow-out against Toronto? Pittsburgh is the strongest opponent after all - shouldn't beating them be worth at least as much?

The main reason it will never happen though, is because the current system as for effect to keep the standings ever-so slightly tighter and keeps greater interest in playoff races. The league loves this as it keeps people watching and it sells. It's not a huge difference from the old way, but the 3-2-1-0 system would definitely widen the ranks.

Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:17 AM
  #42
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Rogue View Post
A game of hockey is worth 2 points.

If you win the game, you take the 2 points.

If you lose the game, you get nothing, because there is only 2 points to compete for.

During the tie days, if you tied, you split said 2 points.

Today, if your team loses the game but had it tied for 60 minutes, you get a magical 1 point from this 2 point game that comes out of nowhere, to thank you for your hard work.

A shootout is supposed to break a tie. That means there is a winner and a loser. Yes, it is a loser point. Yes, it rewards teams for losing. It also encourages trap play. Why go hard offence at the end of the period when you are tied? You can always just get a point in OT/SO and hope for the best.

The fact is, what people miss, is that a shootout decides the game. A tie means the game is undecided. If you are playing after a game has been decided (like znk's argument), then the game is not over. Therefore, a shootout should decide the two points, not some ugly "winner" point as people are arguing.

Just remove the point system entirely. One point for a win, no points for a loss. Lose in Regulation, Overtime or Shootout, you get nothing. A team makes the playoffs based on their wins. Tiebreaker is goals scored.

You are using semantics and basing it on your opinion. Doesn't make it right, y'know.

And Znk is right, because the league itself calls the extra one-point of OT and SO, a TIE-BREAKER point. This means that after regulation, BOTH teams receive a point because they are tied. The point is awarded at this moment. Not when the team loses.

See how easy it is to play with the semantics?

Who ever said teams compete for 2 points? Semantics again, based on opinion. Teams compete for a WIN. The 1 point or 2 points, are jsut ways to calibrate standings. IF they so chose to give one point to each team after regulation, it is their choice, and it doesn't break any rule, written, spoken or otherwise. If they so chose to award an extra point to the team that wins the overtime or shootout, it is at their sole discretion, it is their choice, and it doesn't break any rule, written, spoken or otherwise. It only breaks rules you've made up in your own head.

Please provide better arguments.

So please, get off your high horse.


At least you did provide a good suggestion. 1 win, 1 point, I like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone Rogue View Post
A shootout is not an exhibition event. It is a part of the game. Teams are already rewarded a point for winning a shootout, so I don't see why people have such a problem with the opposite (being rewarded nothing for a loss).
Because the effort put to win in a shootout is much less than into a game, and is highly unfair for the team that loses. But yeah, you probably don't see that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
I actually really dislike the idea of the 3-2-1-0 point system as well. To me, it takes a flawed system and makes it flawed again, but in a new way - so doesn't really solve anything.

Instead of having some losses worth more than others, now we have some wins worth less than others. Why should a team battling in a hard fought match against an equally tough opponent get less points for his win because it was in OT or SO? In other words, why should a 4-3 win in OT for Montreal against Pittsburgh be worth less than a 5-0 blow-out against Toronto? Pittsburgh is the strongest opponent after all - shouldn't beating them be worth at least as much?

The main reason it will never happen though, is because the current system as for effect to keep the standings ever-so slightly tighter and keeps greater interest in playoff races. The league loves this as it keeps people watching and it sells. It's not a huge difference from the old way, but the 3-2-1-0 system would definitely widen the ranks.

I too don't like it much, for the same reasons that you provide.

Also, it would confuse the hell out of newbies to the game, much more than the present system. And I also find the present system exciting to watch.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-08-2008 at 05:06 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:22 AM
  #43
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbo View Post
I actually really dislike the idea of the 3-2-1-0 point system as well. To me, it takes a flawed system and makes it flawed again, but in a new way - so doesn't really solve anything.

Instead of having some losses worth more than others, now we have some wins worth less than others. Why should a team battling in a hard fought match against an equally tough opponent get less points for his win because it was in OT or SO? In other words, why should a 4-3 win in OT for Montreal against Pittsburgh be worth less than a 5-0 blow-out against Toronto? Pittsburgh is the strongest opponent after all - shouldn't beating them be worth at least as much?

The main reason it will never happen though, is because the current system as for effect to keep the standings ever-so slightly tighter and keeps greater interest in playoff races. The league loves this as it keeps people watching and it sells. It's not a huge difference from the old way, but the 3-2-1-0 system would definitely widen the ranks.
I agree about the flawed part..

They're both flawed. But 3-2-1-0 is better than the current one.

Now.. I have no problem with ties.

And I have no problem with elminiating the loser point (or "extra winner point" for ZNK )

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:22 AM
  #44
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumoki Dachiba View Post
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.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:22 AM
  #45
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
If anyone sees me posting multiple messages like I did in this thread I'd appreciate if you reported the multimsgs and/or messaged me about them.

I've been having some issues with HF lately, it lags really badly for periods of 1-10 mins, and then its fine for periods of 45-50 mins. Idk what is going on but for some reason, HF seems to choke on me every so often resulting in posts not being made or being made multiple times as I sometimes refresh cause it's been sittng on posting something for like 45 minutes. (I leave a post posting cause I go to do some work, come back 40 mins later, it's still trying to post it)

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:25 AM
  #46
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
I agree about the flawed part..

They're both flawed. But 3-2-1-0 is better than the current one.

Now.. I have no problem with ties.

And I have no problem with elminiating the loser point (or "extra winner point" for ZNK )
Actually I find the 3 point win more flawed, but I think that's a matter of opinion, don't you think?

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:27 AM
  #47
neofury*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, PQ
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,277
vCash: 500
I think they should do one of two things.

W-L-T (20 min OT or at least, 10 min)

W-L-OT-SO (I like shootouts, but could go with either this or above)

But no 3pts, winner gets 2pts, loser gets 0, plain and simple.

neofury* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:27 AM
  #48
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Actually I find the 3 point win more flawed, but I think that's a matter of opinion, don't you think?
Well.. at least it doesn't make certain games or certains seasons totally off

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:28 AM
  #49
Turbo
Registered User
 
Turbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Greys section 325
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
I agree about the flawed part..

They're both flawed. But 3-2-1-0 is better than the current one.

Now.. I have no problem with ties.

And I have no problem with eliminating the loser point (or "extra winner point" for ZNK )
Yeah, to me, if the league decides it wants to change the current system, these are the options I'd prefer.

Heck, as others have suggested indirectly (essentially the W = 1pt idea), you can just tabulate the W & L and show the "games behind" like they do in Baseball or Basketball (Football is essentially like that too, but because there's so few games played and all teams play them on the same day (more or less), people can figure out the standings just by looking at them).

Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:32 AM
  #50
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
Well.. at least it doesn't make certain games or certains seasons totally off
Waddaya mean?

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.