HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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
10-08-2008, 09:32 AM
  #51
otto bond
Registered User
 
otto bond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,853
vCash: 500
if any changes would to be made, I would say that the top 8 team should go to the dance. Not the 3 division winner but the top 8

otto bond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:34 AM
  #52
Arctic_Hab_Fan
Registered User
 
Arctic_Hab_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by otto bond View Post
if any changes would to be made, I would say that the top 8 team should go to the dance. Not the 3 division winner but the top 8
Let's take that a step further, why not the Top 16 of the NHL? The Truely better teams fighting for the Stanley Cup.

Arctic_Hab_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:42 AM
  #53
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic_Hab_Fan View Post
Let's take that a step further, why not the Top 16 of the NHL? The Truely better teams fighting for the Stanley Cup.
This would somewhat reduce divisional rivalries....

I'm not too sure about those two suggestions, but have been thinking about them.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:53 AM
  #54
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Waddaya mean?
Well.. lets say there are 10 games remaining in the season for all teams. Positions 6 to 10 are battling for a playoff spot.

If teams are playing eachother and get to overtimes, then its very possible (even probable) that many of those games will give points to multiple teams while others will not. Teams playing in divisions with a lot of defensive minded coaches or great goalies and are similar in strenght will end up naturally helping eachother while teams in run and gun offense divisions with disparity between the top teams and middle of the pack teams will end up disadvantaging eachother.

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:53 AM
  #55
Arctic_Hab_Fan
Registered User
 
Arctic_Hab_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
I'm not entirely sold on it Ozy, but there were times I got sick of seeing the same match ups in the playoffs...this would be a breath of fresh air.

Arctic_Hab_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 09:55 AM
  #56
Little Nilan
Registered User
 
Little Nilan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Praha
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 8,209
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Little Nilan
The old system: W-L-T. It wasn't broken yet they tried to fix it. I'm not a fan of the shootout either.

Little Nilan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:03 AM
  #57
TheCH*
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,060
vCash: 500
This is what i think. In the old system, if you lost in OT, you got zero point. But if it was tied at the end of ot, you got your 1 point. So i think a loss in regulation or overtime, should be zero points. If you make it to the shootout, you get your 1 point and then the shootout decides the extra. So:
A win(no matter how, regulation, ot, so..) = 2 points
A shootout loss = 1 point
A loss (in regulation over ot) = 0 points

TheCH* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:11 AM
  #58
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
Well.. lets say there are 10 games remaining in the season for all teams. Positions 6 to 10 are battling for a playoff spot.

If teams are playing eachother and get to overtimes, then its very possible (even probable) that many of those games will give points to multiple teams while others will not. Teams playing in divisions with a lot of defensive minded coaches or great goalies and are similar in strenght will end up naturally helping eachother while teams in run and gun offense divisions with disparity between the top teams and middle of the pack teams will end up disadvantaging eachother.
I come from the school of thought where you are master of your own destiny. You win if that's what you need to do, no matter if a competing team gets a points because they were tied after regulation and lost in OT and SO. This same rule applies to all teams all season long, so if you are short one point, well, it was your own duty to at least tie one more game at end of regulation.

JMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCH View Post
This is what i think. In the old system, if you lost in OT, you got zero point. But if it was tied at the end of ot, you got your 1 point. So i think a loss in regulation or overtime, should be zero points. If you make it to the shootout, you get your 1 point and then the shootout decides the extra. So:
A win(no matter how, regulation, ot, so..) = 2 points
A shootout loss = 1 point
A loss (in regulation over ot) = 0 points

Well, that's pretty true to the old form, while keeping the shootouts, I like it. Especially since OT wins are hard to get, you have to work for them. Although, I would put them back at 5 on 5 and 10 minutes if that is the case, but I don't think they would do that, because of the 2 games in two nights they have too often now.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-08-2008 at 05:11 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:18 AM
  #59
One Man Rock Band
Slater's Gonna Slate
 
One Man Rock Band's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Habville
Country: Canada
Posts: 43,857
vCash: 500
i like the 3 points win, 2 points ot/shootout win, 1 point ot loss.

One Man Rock Band is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:21 AM
  #60
Arctic_Hab_Fan
Registered User
 
Arctic_Hab_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCH View Post
This is what i think. In the old system, if you lost in OT, you got zero point. But if it was tied at the end of ot, you got your 1 point. So i think a loss in regulation or overtime, should be zero points. If you make it to the shootout, you get your 1 point and then the shootout decides the extra. So:
A win(no matter how, regulation, ot, so..) = 2 points
A shootout loss = 1 point
A loss (in regulation over ot) = 0 points
I like this scenerio, it gets rid of 'lets make it to OT to get a point' mentality instituted in the lesser teams.

Arctic_Hab_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:28 AM
  #61
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic_Hab_Fan View Post
I like this scenerio, it gets rid of 'lets make it to OT to get a point' mentality instituted in the lesser teams.
Yeah, but won't they just switch that to the 'lets make it to shootout to get a point' mentality ?

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:31 AM
  #62
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kareem View Post
The old system: W-L-T. It wasn't broken yet they tried to fix it. I'm not a fan of the shootout either.
+1

I don't see what the problem was with having ties.

__________________
Hey look, it's Duffman; the guy in a costume that creates awareness of Duff!
Darz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:32 AM
  #63
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darz View Post
+1

I don't see what the problem was with having ties.
The league wanted to create excitement to attract newbies to the game by having shootouts, and since *some* Americans are so simplistic, they thought having a winning team at each game would attract more people.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:35 AM
  #64
Arctic_Hab_Fan
Registered User
 
Arctic_Hab_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Yeah, but won't they just switch that to the 'lets make it to shootout to get a point' mentality ?
That's fine with me, that's like the old system, Survive Overtime and one gets a point...Not Just Get to Overtime to get a point as is the case now.

Arctic_Hab_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 10:45 AM
  #65
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Huh? Dude.... I said the top 3 WERE divisional winners in the standings I put... go reread it... Mtl, Pit and Car in the 3 first because they are divisional winners.




Huh, that's also bush league imo.

Is there a rule in sports or somewhere that says that every game should be worth the same? Nah, didn't think so.

The only reason I could understand such a system is to help quantify and differentiate teams' records and to have a better ground to predict hom much points is needed for a team to be in or out of the playoff race, yet still, it won't change a thing to the end result, except to please a minority.

Give better reasons and arguments for such a system than just "every game would be worth as much", because this fact doesn't seem to be affecting teams at all.





yeah can't wait for the next game (saturday) against them to get some more of that... and next spring... and the year after that... and on and on and on...
No there is no rule that every game should be worth the same amount of points, just ask the NASL..... oh wait

Hackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 11:44 AM
  #66
znk
Registered User
 
znk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darz View Post
+1

I don't see what the problem was with having ties.
It was broken. You really dont remember what kind of hockey we had in OT?
It was like both coachs had an agreement "Lets not messed this up. We wont attack and none of use will lose the point we just won." At least now we get something interesting with both teams exchanging scoring chances trying to win the extra point.

The shootout I dont mind. It's brought a lot of excitement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic_Hab_Fan View Post
That's fine with me, that's like the old system, Survive Overtime and one gets a point...Not Just Get to Overtime to get a point as is the case now.
Actually it used to be. Lets get to OT and then survive OT and we all get a point. IT was the trap for the last 5 minutes of the game plus the 5 minutes of OT.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-08-2008 at 05:12 PM.
znk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 11:59 AM
  #67
kovalev47
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 680
vCash: 500
I would prefer to see the following:

3 points for a regulation or overtime win.

2 points for an overtime loss.

1 point for a shootout win and 0 points for a shootout loss.

kovalev47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 12:01 PM
  #68
Arctic_Hab_Fan
Registered User
 
Arctic_Hab_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
yet still, Survive OT then get a point...now its, Get to OT and regardless one gets a point. Lose in OT, one shouldn't get a point, survive it first than go after the extra 1 point.

Arctic_Hab_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 12:12 PM
  #69
Darz
Registered User
 
Darz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Where's the ANY key?
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by znk View Post
It was broken. You really dont remember what kind of hockey we had in OT?
It was like both coachs had an agreement "Lets not messed this up. We wont attack and none of use will lose the point we just won." At least now we get something interesting with both teams exchanging scoring chances trying to win the extra point.

The shootout I dont mind. It's brought a lot of excitement.
Seeing that I'm 38 years old, yes I remember the old 5 minute OT.
Yes both teams played conservative. So what?? That's hockey.

Throw caution to the wind, who cares we got a point in the bank, AIN'T hockey.

Shootous AIN'T hockey.

I liked the old system. It was unique to hockey (compared to the other 3 major N.A, sports). Along with the Division names. Why did they need to change???

Darz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 12:52 PM
  #70
One Man Rock Band
Slater's Gonna Slate
 
One Man Rock Band's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Habville
Country: Canada
Posts: 43,857
vCash: 500
I don't like ties for the simple fact that the trap game was used so much in the last half of the game. I like the new exciting game just as much as the old game.. and it really excels with our club right now.

I do think a 3-2-1-0 system is the best.

3 wins for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/Shootout win, 1 for an OT/Shootout loss, and 0 for a regulation loss.

It'll make the game more exciting because teams will be going for the extra point in regulation. If they don't get it there, they'll try in OT for the extra point again.

People are saying it's flawed because we could beat Pittsburgh 4-3 in OT, while beating Toronto 5-0.. we get more points for the lesser win. This is true. However, all teams are going to be playing weaker teams and every team plays each other.

They could also change the schedule to play each team 3 times for an 87 game schedule.

One Man Rock Band is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 12:56 PM
  #71
Arctic_Hab_Fan
Registered User
 
Arctic_Hab_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
whats wrong with the simpler, don't give a point to a team that loses in OT?

Arctic_Hab_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 12:57 PM
  #72
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by natey2k4 View Post
I don't like ties for the simple fact that the trap game was used so much in the last half of the game. I like the new exciting game just as much as the old game.. and it really excels with our club right now.

I do think a 3-2-1-0 system is the best.

3 wins for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/Shootout win, 1 for an OT/Shootout loss, and 0 for a regulation loss.

It'll make the game more exciting because teams will be going for the extra point in regulation. If they don't get it there, they'll try in OT for the extra point again.

People are saying it's flawed because we could beat Pittsburgh 4-3 in OT, while beating Toronto 5-0.. we get more points for the lesser win. This is true. However, all teams are going to be playing weaker teams and every team plays each other.

They could also change the schedule to play each team 3 times for an 87 game schedule.


But then that would completely eliminate divisional rivalries.

I think the league has its heart set on that, so will probably never do that.

Also, this would cost much more to all teams for travel expenses, and the bottom line would be less profits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arctic_Hab_Fan View Post
whats wrong with the simpler, don't give a point to a team that loses in OT?
I do agree with that.

But keep the tie points for when they reach the shootout, and the winner of the SO gets another point.


Last edited by Beakermania*: 10-08-2008 at 05:13 PM.
Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 12:59 PM
  #73
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
I come from the school of thought where you are master of your own destiny. You win if that's what you need to do, no matter if a competing team gets a points because they were tied after regulation and lost in OT and SO. This same rule applies to all teams all season long, so if you are short one point, well, it was your own duty to at least tie one more game at end of regulation.

JMO.
I completely agree with you. But I also believe it should be a fair playing field for everybody.

If the teams played every other team the same amount of time, then no problem. But there are divisions to consider, and it seems that some divisions have way more 3 point games than others.

An imperfect survey of last year's standings shows the following "extra points" given out by division:

NE: 53
Atl: 48
SE: 40

NW: 43
C: 49
Pac: 39

There are 13 more "extra points" spread out among NE teams than SE teams. I think some of that divergence might be due to the fact that SE teams play bad defense. It also means that generally, when these teams win, they win BIG, and when they lose, they lose BIG. So less extra points for them..

If we were in Carolina, I'd be friggin pissed.

AD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 01:08 PM
  #74
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AD View Post
I completely agree with you. But I also believe it should be a fair playing field for everybody.

If the teams played every other team the same amount of time, then no problem. But there are divisions to consider, and it seems that some divisions have way more 3 point games than others.

An imperfect survey of last year's standings shows the following "extra points" given out by division:

NE: 53
Atl: 48
SE: 40

NW: 43
C: 49
Pac: 39

There are 13 more "extra points" spread out among NE teams than SE teams. I think some of that divergence might be due to the fact that SE teams play bad defense. It also means that generally, when these teams win, they win BIG, and when they lose, they lose BIG. So less extra points for them..

If we were in Carolina, I'd be friggin pissed.
Well, that would be the same problem with the 3 points system, now wouldn't it?

I mean, Detroit would certainly win more games in regulation against Nashville, St-Louis, Chicago and Columbus, than other teams would, wouldn't they?

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-08-2008, 01:10 PM
  #75
AD
Registered User
 
AD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bigassofficetower
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 14,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Well, that would be the same problem with the 3 points system, now wouldn't it?

I mean, Detroit would certainly win more games in regulation against Nashville, St-Louis, Chicago and Columbus, than other teams wouldn't they?
But the total number of points given out per division would be the same.

AD 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 05:12 AM.

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.