I love this idea, stop rewarding losers. Watch how many teams stop playing for the 1 point by dumping the puck in and putting all 5 guys behind the red line and stuffing up th neatral zone in the last 10 minutes of the 3rd period
A three point spread in one game creates too much spread in standings. I like the idea of losers not getting points, but I think 2 for regulation and OT with 1 point for a shootout win is the way to go.
Either keep it the way it is but change the points system like a lot of people are saying:
3 points - Regulation Win
2 points - OT Win
1 point - SO Win
0 points - Loss (in any situation)
or
3 points - Regulation Win/OT Win
2 points - SO Win
1 point - OT Loss
0 points - Regulation Loss/SO Loss
Or you change the OT system: 5 minutes 4v4, 5 minutes 3v3. If you can't score on a 3v3 you're one **** team. And at the end of that, have a shootout. But keep the point system, because no way you reward going to a shootout more than OT, it just doesn't make sense.
I wonder what the league standings would look like if we used this kind of point system. The Wings rarely lose in OT/SO.
I wonder what the league standings would look like if we used this kind of point system. The Wings rarely lose in OT/SO.
Some people in the past have done the math on how point systems would shake out if you applied them to previous seasons.
If my memory is correct, mostly the standings were the same. Only 1 or 2 changes to the playoffs each season, sometimes no changes. The biggest difference was the top teams had a more secure lead and the bottom teams were more cemented towards the bottom. Is that a good thing? Well, those of us rooting for a top team might think so.
You're approaching this all the wrong way. This isn't about what Americans or Canadians or Swedes enjoy.
This is about team profits. Close standings mean more teams can promote a playoff race. A playoff race means more ticket sales. It means less teams feel pressured to "sell" at the trade deadline. It means more fans feel their team has a chance.
It's about money. And our overload Bettman has actually done a good job of making sure hockey is profitable. Like him or hate him, the numbers don't lie.
I'm not sure I see how 3v3 is any more conventional than a shootout. I think it's just another thing that doesn't need fixed. I'd rather just see the goalies allowed to play the puck again and all of the lines moved back to where they were.
While I'm not on board with the return of the red line at this time, I'm 100% in favor of letting goalies play the puck anywhere they wish, with the quid pro quo that they are only "untouchable" when they are in their crease.
While I'm not on board with the return of the red line at this time, I'm 100% in favor of letting goalies play the puck anywhere they wish, with the quid pro quo that they are only "untouchable" when they are in their crease.
I don't know if they have to be fair game, or just call interference on them if they wander out, get trapped and try setting a pick to save their rears.
I don't know if they have to be fair game, or just call interference on them if they wander out, get trapped and try setting a pick to save their rears.
6 minutes of 3 vs 3. Then shootout. Why the hell not? Teams are beat up after 82 games as it is, why add half a period to a lot of them just to get a victor? This way we'll have our precious winner they need so badly, but we won't approach nearly the amount of shootouts we have now. It took no time at all for teams to realize playing for the shootout might give them a much better chance. Teams trap, collapse, play boring crap hockey and wait for the shootout. You can't do that 3 on 3 unless everyone consents, but have fun telling someone to play conservative when there's so much ice and such a great chance at scoring.
Now remove that charity point for taking a loss sometime after 60 minutes and it'd be perfect. Piss on your artificial parity Gary. All it does it ruin the trade deadline and ensure fodder teams get destroyed in the first round.
I want to see that. I really do.
Lidström, Dats and Z vs. Letang, Sid and Malkin.
Exactly. The shootout may be entertaining, but if you have ever seen 3v3 hockey it is very exciting. In the NHL it would essentially be first team with an odd man rush would score, but then again you would have one or two a year that goes on for a while with some incredible saves. I love this idea.
While I'm not on board with the return of the red line at this time, I'm 100% in favor of letting goalies play the puck anywhere they wish, with the quid pro quo that they are only "untouchable" when they are in their crease.
I'd leave the trapezoid as an untouchable area also, but if you play it outside of there you can be checked.
We've been over this. Because it creates close standings where everybody appears to be statistically in the playoff hunt come spring.
That's generally good for teams trying to sell tickets in the later part of the season. Once a team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs it really makes it hard to sell the product.
Actually they have eliminated the 3v3 opportunities. It was the edmonton rule back in the days of Gretzky. Edmonton would intentionally draw other teams into offsetting penalties in order to free up the ice for their skill guys.
I don't know the rule to the letter but I doubt that. Maybe offsetting penalties were removed, but what if it's already 4v3 and the team with 4 takes a penalty?
