The 3-2-1 systems sound good and would work, but the NHL and NHLPA would never be on board because it would get rid of alot of the hype going down the stretch
I've said all along that the best route is to just keep it simple.
2 points for a win.
0 for a loss.
Simple.
A win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Since the NHL wanted to do away with ties, wins can happen at later stages of the game, but they're still wins.
A narrow shootout victory should hold just as much weight as a blowout win in regulation. And a loss 10 seconds into overtime shouldn't earn you a charity point when you get nothing if you lose 11 seconds earlier.
I hate the idea of a shootout resulting in a two-point swing. It's a crap shoot and is kitsch at best. I understand wanting to make it simple but I would definitely be against a system like that.
I like piqued's system. More points for a real win (regulation) than for OT or Shootout. Scoring a real goal in OT is still legit hockey and should be rewarded by the point system to show that.
Why not? Why should you be rewarded for playing your opponent to a draw prior to the shootout? That's the same state the two teams are in before the puck drops -- theoretically even. You've proven absolutely nothing, accomplished absolutely nothing over those 65 minutes. Any point awarded to a loser is essentially a participation ribbon.
Why not? Why should you be rewarded for playing your opponent to a draw prior to the shootout? That's the same state the two teams are in before the puck drops -- theoretically even. You've proven absolutely nothing, accomplished absolutely nothing over those 65 minutes. Any point awarded to a loser is essentially a participation ribbon.
because the shoot out is a completely ridiculous way to determine a winner. Losing in a shootout is not a real loss and shouldnt be treated as such.
Similarly, winning in the shootout is a fairly ridiculous way to determine a winner. And that's why it's worth a third of a "real" win. It still would serve the function of providing resolution to the game, it still would be entertainment for those who enjoy it. I just don't see why a team should benefit from first failing to win in regulation, then failing to win in overtime, and finally failing to win the skills competition. What exactly would you be giving them a point for?
Similarly, winning in the shootout is a fairly ridiculous way to determine a winner. And that's why it's worth a third of a "real" win. It still would serve the function of providing resolution to the game, it still would be entertainment for those who enjoy it. I just don't see why a team should benefit from first failing to win in regulation, then failing to win in overtime, and finally failing to win the skills competition. What exactly would you be giving them a point for?
See, I think a good compromise position would be no points for a shootout win, but that team's fans get a coupon for a free taco or something. Resolution to game, no silly shootout messing up the standings, everyone's happy.
Similarly, winning in the shootout is a fairly ridiculous way to determine a winner. And that's why it's worth a third of a "real" win. It still would serve the function of providing resolution to the game, it still would be entertainment for those who enjoy it. I just don't see why a team should benefit from first failing to win in regulation, then failing to win in overtime, and finally failing to win the skills competition. What exactly would you be giving them a point for?
I'd be giving the team a point for not losing the actual game which is vastly more important than the shootout. Call it a tie with a bonus point for winning the shootout if there must be a shootout. If a shootout win isnt as positive as a regular win a shootout loss shouldnt be as negative as a regular loss.
The problem with that system is you still have games that are worth varying degrees of points. You can have a 3 point game, a 2 point game, or a 1 point game. That creates variance within the system and leads to the same problem we have now, some games are 2 points into the system, others are 3. Piqued's system exasperates that with 3, 2, and 1 point games on a random given night.
There's no way to successfully balance the point system to cater to everyone's wish. Some people want to see teams that make it to OT/SO rewarded in some way. Others want to see a win be a win, no matter how it got there, even it means validating the SO the same as a regulation win. A straight 2-0 system, which is better than we have now, validates the SO/OT as a normal win and possess off the people who feel getting to OT is worth something ala an old school tie.
The Olympic system makes most sense with the 3-2-1 approach. Every games 3 points into the pool no matter what happens. You fail to win in regulation, you only get 2 points. You have enough drive to make it to OT, you get at least a point and deny the other team a point.
See, I think a good compromise position would be no points for a shootout win, but that team's fans get a coupon for a free taco or something. Resolution to game, no silly shootout messing up the standings, everyone's happy.
Hahaha. That was so embarrassing when they were announcing the stupid taco coupon or whatever while Letang was laying on the ice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by txomisc
I'd be giving the team a point for not losing the actual game which is vastly more important than the shootout. Call it a tie with a bonus point for winning the shootout if there must be a shootout. If a shootout win isnt as positive as a regular win a shootout loss shouldnt be as negative as a regular loss.
We're just coming at this from different philosophies. I hate ties. I hate everything about them. I want to remove all vestiges of that kind of thinking from the sport. Playing your opponent to a standstill is not a good thing, to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnholyPrince
The problem with that system is you still have games that are worth varying degrees of points. You can have a 3 point game, a 2 point game, or a 1 point game. That creates variance within the system and leads to the same problem we have now, some games are 2 points into the system, others are 3.
But why is variance a problem? I don't understand. It's only a problem if it creates an imbalance toward /incentive for safe, conservative play, which is what we have now.
But why is variance a problem? I don't understand. It's only a problem if it creates an incentive for safe, conservative play, which is what we have now.
It creates an unpredictable and unbalanced # of points in the system. When scoreboard watching you'll just hope every game goes to OT/SO. Its the reverse of what we have now, and you'll hear opinions that it invalidates a win. Or that the team that gets to OT still deserves something. I think it just takes one problem and flips it, creating new ones to solve the motivation issue.
I agree it creates incentive to finish in regulation or OT, but so does the Olympic system, without the random variance of what a game is "worth."
We're just coming at this from different philosophies. I hate ties. I hate everything about them. I want to remove all vestiges of that kind of thinking from the sport. Playing your opponent to a standstill is not a good thing, to me.
I don't like ties but for me radically changing the way a game is played to get a result is way worse than ties are. I suspect I hate the idea of too much importance being put on a shootout as much as you hate ties. I also really hate the idea of 3 on 3 hockey that alot of people propose.
It creates an unpredictable and unbalanced # of points in the system. When scoreboard watching you'll just hope every game goes to OT/SO. Its the reverse of what we have now, and you'll hear opinions that it invalidates a win. Or that the team that gets to OT still deserves something. I think it just takes one problem and flips it, creating new ones to solve the motivation issue.
I agree it creates incentive to finish in regulation or OT, but so does the Olympic system, without the random variance of what a game is "worth."
I'm just not seeing where you say why the imbalance is a bad thing. Shouldn't teams that are good enough to win in regulation get the lion's share of the points? Middling teams will be left in the dust. If your argument is that artificially-induced (via manipulation of the standings/point system) parity is good for the sport, then I can understand, although I would disagree.
I feel the Olympic system only gets half of the incentive issue correct. What's the more powerful motivator? The promise of an extra point or the fear of getting nothing? I would argue the fear.
The only GM that makes any sort of intelligent point is Stevie Y.
The anonymous one is wrong, teams aren't going to pull their goalie with 5 minutes left. I find it highly questionable that teams would pull their goalie at all during a tied game, 3 points or not. There isn't a whole lot of evidence to support the idea that pulling the goalie even works. There's still the chance to win 2 points in OT.
Holland is wrong also, especially about the quote about going to 3v3 and calling that "playing hockey". How is 3v3 any more "playing hockey" than 1v1 (a shootout) ? What percentage of the total games of an NHL season is played at 3v3? They're both gimmicks. At least the shootout has a history to it at many different levels of the sport.
Furthermore, I reject the entire idea that races are what sustain fan interest. An exciting product is what makes people want to come back and see more. Fans are smart. They don't think their team is good because they're mired in the morass with god knows how many other teams fighting for 8th. At any rate, there will still be races - they''ll just have much more clarity to them and less gridlock.
Some of the points a lot of people are hinting on only seem applicable in the very late stages (last few games) of the season.
Piqued's idea would make those games so impossibly frantic and good it would be amazing to watch. But there probably wouldn't be as tight of a race at the end of the season as there is now.
I'm for the Olympic system as well. Just seems the most fair.
someone may have already put this, but I am far too lazy to go through other pages.
3 pts for a reg win
3 pts for OT win, 0 for OT loss
2 pts for SO win, 1 for SO loss
I think that the 'first to score wins' in OT is enough of a change and does not require the loser to get a point. Both teams would be pushing for the full 3 in OT. Shootout is a skills comp, although very enjoyable, so loser gets a point. Just my $0.02.
Furthermore, I reject the entire idea that races are what sustain fan interest. An exciting product is what makes people want to come back and see more. Fans are smart. They don't think their team is good because they're mired in the morass with god knows how many other teams fighting for 8th. At any rate, there will still be races - they''ll just have much more clarity to them and less gridlock.
The last time this topic came up I posted an extremely wordy opinion which you just said more succinctly. Fans know there aren't 20 "good" teams.
If I were a GM I'm pretty sure I would assess my team against the league with my own standings whereby SO points are not part of the equation. Obviously, that comes with the caveat that the teams played those games under a system with the SO winner point, thus affecting outcomes, etc. But if you're not one of the top 3-4 teams in your conference you're probably some level of mediocre. The rest is all window-dressing.
