Because it merely pushes the "trying not to lose" aspect into regulation time. While a higher percentage of overtime games were being decided as a result of the rule, a much higher percentage of games were going into overtime, so that by last season, the percentage of games that ended in a tie was nearly the same as the year before this rule was implemented.
Teams stop pushing in the third period to protect that point. The losers point has had seriously detrimental effect on the game. It needs to go.
I think a higher percentage of games are being decided in OT because teams do not want to go to the SO.
Basically, as far as rules that need to go, this tops my list. I have never liked it.
Basically, you can lose every single game this season, as long as it's in ot, and still possibly make the playoffs. It's insane. You dont deserve to be credited at all for a loss.
Not only that but it's frustrating to see your team behind another team in the standings, solely due to the fact they have all those OT points. You dont want ties in the game, how about not basically giving them that extra bonus point then either, hmm? Makes some sense to me.
Who the **** came up with such an asinine idea?
What you say about getting a point in overtime makes sense, but if you think the team that takes the loss in a shootout shouldn't get anything while the other team gets two, your out of your skull.
I often find this rule annoying to. Why should a team record a point for losing.
Maybe, and this is not what I particularly want, but it is a compromise, maybe if a team makes it to the shootout, they could get 1 point, but if they lose in regular OT its just a normal loss, and no points awarded to the losing team.
But its not a normal loss in OT, its 4 on 4. Playing 60 minutes of normal hockey, then having OT 4 on 4 with the same point result doesnt really make sence.
three-point system is what is needed... it makes too much sense.
- 3 pts for win in regulation
- 2 pts for win in OT/SO
- 1 pt for loss in OT/SO
every night three points are up for grabs... i saw a quote from Bettman saying this was discussed, but they were concerned about season records or something. which is cr@p.
The competition committee investigated a three-two-one point system. What they determined (using three years worth of data) is that they three-two-one point system would create too much separation between teams too early in the season. In other words, too many teams would be eliminated from playoff contention early in the season. While you may state “big deal” data suggests that teams that have been eliminated from playoff contention experience a decline in attendance – meaning less revenue. Furthermore, the competition committee wanted to foster the feeling that more teams had a chance/were fighting for playoff berths longer. It makes for better hockey.
Everyone is too critical of the OT point system. I like the idea of getting a point automatically if you make it to OT. You're tied with the other team after the regulation 60 minutes, so you get a point, what's the problem with that? Most of my friends are also against the OT point system, but oh well, it's here to stay.
So 1 point for an OT loss isn't fair but 0 points because a team wins a meaningless shootout is fair? It's fair for a team to vastly outplay the other team and have the games fate decided by a silly little side show after the real game is over? What a sad joke. If they get rid of the OT loss point, then they most certainly need to get rid of the shootout. Which they should do in any case.
not if weaker teams take advantage of this by clamping down in order to reach OT and make sure they have a point... or take their chances in a shootout. i understand what you're saying, and what they were saying, but am definitely a proponent of teams that win in regulation getting more of a reward for accomplishing that than teams that need an extra 5 minutes/shootout.
it would absolutely seperate the league greatly... but what it would probably do is make sure that the best teams get the highest seeds possible... rather than have to compete with teams that got equal points from shootouts for seeding.