I said that the losing team gets a point... and that is wrong because???
It's a fact that the losing team gets a point. You can't even debate that.
Sure I can.
There's over 100 years of precedent demonstrating that in the event of a tie both teams receive a point.
Starting a few seasons ago they started awarding bonus points for teams that win the ridiculous "4 on 4" exhibition game that follows 60 minutes of regulation hockey. Now they've added an additional round of exhibition to help decide who receives the bonus point.
To suggest that a team that "loses" the shootout somehow "lost" the hockey game is absurd. Hell they awarded Bernier a shutout for a game he allegedly lost according to you.
How could a goalie possibly LOSE a game in which he allowed zero goals?
There's over 100 years of precedent demonstrating that in the event of a tie both teams receive a point.
Starting a few seasons ago they started awarding bonus points for teams that win the ridiculous "4 on 4" exhibition game that follows 60 minutes of regulation hockey. Now they've added an additional round of exhibition to help decide who receives the bonus point.
To suggest that a team that "loses" the shootout somehow "lost" the hockey game is absurd. Hell they awarded Bernier a shutout for a game he allegedly lost according to you.
How could a goalie possibly LOSE a game in which he allowed zero goals?
By getting beat in the shootout, of course. Was that supposed to be a trick question?
There's over 100 years of precedent demonstrating that in the event of a tie both teams receive a point.
Starting a few seasons ago they started awarding bonus points for teams that win the ridiculous "4 on 4" exhibition game that follows 60 minutes of regulation hockey. Now they've added an additional round of exhibition to help decide who receives the bonus point.
To suggest that a team that "loses" the shootout somehow "lost" the hockey game is absurd. Hell they awarded Bernier a shutout for a game he allegedly lost according to you.
How could a goalie possibly LOSE a game in which he allowed zero goals?
This isn't a court so wtf does precedent have to do with anything?
Technology, life, everything moves forward and gets better all the time.
Should we still use carbon paper because it was around for so many years? Or are copy machines, and digital images easier and better for anyone?
Do you walk out of Staples Center after a shootout loss and say to yourself "Well, at least we didn't lose!"???
No.
A shootout loss is a loss. Not a win. Not a tie. A LOSS.
As a matter of fact that's EXACTLY what I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Bunny Foo Foo
This isn't a court so wtf does precedent have to do with anything?
Technology, life, everything moves forward and gets better all the time.
Should we still use carbon paper because it was around for so many years? Or are copy machines, and digital images easier and better for anyone?
He said "you can't even debate that". I'm debating it and I'm using the existence of ties to do it.
As for "change"....
Has anybody revolutionized "the wheel" lately? I could be wrong but I feel like a circle is still the shape of choice when it comes to making wheels.
Technology has changed the game of hockey... but that has nothing to do with shootouts or ties. Out of curiosity... how would you feel if, in twenty years, someone proposed that we toss out wins and losses and instead just focused on how many goals are scored in a season?
I mean after all... that would force teams to play an exciting offensive brand of hockey and after all... change is part of life right?
The 3rd point is a retarded concept... This is a prof sport,there are no victories in losing.NHL needs to take a step back in the stats, and take out all the useless BS.
Have 2 colums.
Win's and losses...
No more Ties, S.o.L., Points..
Just winners on top.
Losers on bottom....
seriously doubt hockey will ever adopt that system though...Its not complex enough...
I think they need to go back to win-loses-ties.
Cut the seasons down by a dozen games or so...
... extend over time to at least ten minutes, ideally more.
... allow more players on the bench and on a roster.
I'm curious... what's the benefit of more players on the bench?
Valid question..
..this is to help fatigue to further help elongating games. Hopefully a by-product of this will be less injuries as well.
Another unintentional but possibly cool by-product of a larger bench would be higher skilled players going against lower skilled players. More goals, exciting plays, etc.
I don't know if you want to cut down a dozen..but a few can go (which will never happen)
10 minutes of 4 on 4 isn't going to yield many ties, especially if the refs don't swallow their whistles.
Yeah, I think with extending the bench they wouldn't have to cut back so many games... I think cutting down six would eliminate back to back games for a season, making this possible.
I've always hated 5 minute overtimes. Especially when a penalty is called. I mean, at least have one minute penalties in overtime or something or have penalties in overtime be four on five.
Four on three has been too dominating IMO.
I especially like these moves because it's just "tinkering".. it's not going to yield changes to the core game (such as four on four, which I somewhat don't like), but should make the subtle differences to improve the game.
Do you walk out of Staples Center after a shootout loss and say to yourself "Well, at least we didn't lose!"???
No.
A shootout loss is a loss. Not a win. Not a tie. A LOSS.
After a shoot out loss I usually say "At least we got a point"
People that are complaining about 3 point games don't do it when it helps their teams. The issue is that other teams get points. When the Kings get one or two points people are either happy or not so upset. When the Ducks and Avs each get points in a game and the Stars and Wild each get at least one point the same night that is when Kings fans get upset. That is why most of us deep down hate the the OT point system. Our team has gone 8 games without a regulation loss and has gained no ground on the rest of the teams because everybody is getting points every night.
Has anybody revolutionized "the wheel" lately? I could be wrong but I feel like a circle is still the shape of choice when it comes to making wheels.
Yes they have, tires are constantly being improved, i.e. new tread technology. Also, new engines came out about 5 years ago too
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Naysay
Technology has changed the game of hockey... but that has nothing to do with shootouts or ties. Out of curiosity... how would you feel if, in twenty years, someone proposed that we toss out wins and losses and instead just focused on how many goals are scored in a season?
I mean after all... that would force teams to play an exciting offensive brand of hockey and after all... change is part of life right?
Defense is part of the game too. And frankly, that is a ridiculous example
