HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Your thoughts on this system

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-08-2008, 10:06 AM
  #26
DJAnimosity
the ol knifey moloko
 
DJAnimosity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Beyond the Infinite
Country: Wales
Posts: 12,893
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to DJAnimosity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macster View Post
I love the shootout. I am also all for the system that's being talked about all over XM, TSN etc.

3 points for a win is great, 2 for OT win. Love it. Make it happen Bettman.
Too many points. It would take 110 points to make the playoffs. Three point systems work in soccer because you play 30+ games. With an 82 game schedule, the standings would be a joke.

DJAnimosity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 10:11 AM
  #27
cbjrocks
Registered User
 
cbjrocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbjrulez View Post
Thank you for starting this thread...

I have never understood why both teams are rewarded for getting to OT. I mean, if you lose in OT, you lose. Even though it is 4 on 4 (not regulation), it is still regular hockey and a extension of the game. You should not get a point if you lose in OT.

Now if the game gets to the shootout, I believe that both teams should be awarded a point, and of course, the winner of the shootout gets 2 points.

I personally like the shootout...I was one that never liked ties.

Win in regulation/OT = 2 points
Loss in regulation/OT = 0 points
Shootout = 1 point to loser. 2 points to winner.

OT would be more boring than it already is...they'll play for the point and hope to pick up an extra in a skills competetion


Last edited by cbjrocks: 02-08-2008 at 10:21 AM.
cbjrocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 10:11 AM
  #28
Macster
Registered User
 
Macster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJAnimosity View Post
Too many points. It would take 110 points to make the playoffs. Three point systems work in soccer because you play 30+ games. With an 82 game schedule, the standings would be a joke.
Who cares?

They are just numbers. They don't add any significance to the standings. It won't mess with history. There is just no other way to add more value to a regulation win, other than making it worth more points.

Macster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 10:16 AM
  #29
DJAnimosity
the ol knifey moloko
 
DJAnimosity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Beyond the Infinite
Country: Wales
Posts: 12,893
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to DJAnimosity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macster View Post
Who cares?

They are just numbers. They don't add any significance to the standings. It won't mess with history. There is just no other way to add more value to a regulation win, other than making it worth more points.
I disagree, I see a win being worth more if a team knows a "loser point" is no longer available.

No team should be awarded ANYTHING for losing a game, it's that simple to me.

DJAnimosity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 10:23 AM
  #30
Aging Goalie
 
Aging Goalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lima, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJAnimosity View Post
I disagree, I see a win being worth more if a team knows a "loser point" is no longer available.

No team should be awarded ANYTHING for losing a game, it's that simple to me.
But why not make it a higher reward to win in regulation? The amount of points is all relative. if 3 would be too high in your opinion make it 2 for reg win, 1 for OT W and 0 for loss no matter how.

Aging Goalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 10:25 AM
  #31
cbjrocks
Registered User
 
cbjrocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aging Goalie View Post
But why not make it a higher reward to win in regulation? The amount of points is all relative. if 3 would be too high in your opinion make it 2 for reg win, 1 for OT W and 0 for loss no matter how.
I'm with DJ--- I'm sick of teams getting something for losing. You should no longer be rewarded for "getting to OT".

cbjrocks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 10:25 AM
  #32
DJAnimosity
the ol knifey moloko
 
DJAnimosity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Beyond the Infinite
Country: Wales
Posts: 12,893
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to DJAnimosity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aging Goalie View Post
But why not make it a higher reward to win in regulation? The amount of points is all relative. if 3 would be too high in your opinion make it 2 for reg win, 1 for OT W and 0 for loss no matter how.
That's closer to what I'm thinking. As long as you get zero points for losing a game, I'm OK with it.

DJAnimosity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 10:27 AM
  #33
Doctor Spin
Registered User
 
Doctor Spin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
The points system is a throwback to ties which no one seems to seriously believe are returning. It is confusing for those who are not addicted to hockey like us. When you combine earning credit for losing and the widespread belief (not among CBJ fans) that almost every team makes the NHL playoffs, no wonder the average sports fan isn't interested in the regular season. cbjrocks makes sense. Adopt a workable OT system that doesn't reward losing or stalling for OT. Two team per division in the playoffs. Stack the non-division games in the early part of the season. Take a deep breath when you realize our division will probably include Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo or Philadelphia.

Doctor Spin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 10:36 AM
  #34
cbjgirl
Just thinking
 
cbjgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: about last summer.
Country: United States
Posts: 3,233
vCash: 500
As long as every game is worth the same amount of total point whether it is 2 or 3, I don't care. Each game should be worth the same amount.

cbjgirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 10:59 AM
  #35
oxcamel
 
oxcamel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 209
vCash: 500
I think any of the solutions presented are better the the current system. There is nothing more frustrating then to be chasing a team, winning your game and only gaining a point because both teams locked it down the last 10 minutes of the 3rd period. Although I don't think it would happen, it also creates a scenario where both teams could agree to tie in the last game of the season so they both could make the playoffs. The 3-2-1 or the 2-1-0 or even the 2-0 point system would prevent this. To me the shootout is fun from a fan perspective but it is like shooting freethrows to decide who wins a basketball game.

oxcamel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 11:27 AM
  #36
Doctor Spin
Registered User
 
Doctor Spin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 148
vCash: 500
When you look at the tightness of this year's race, it is a real defect of the scoring system to allow some games to be three point games and others two points. Although I know that all the teams are playing with the same rules; particularly with non-conference games where the bonus point always helps both teams, there really isn't a justification for making some games more rewarding other than the history of ties.

On the point of fan excitement of the shootout, it is becoming a bit too commonplace. The thrill of a penalty shot comes in large part from its rarity. We've lost that with a every three weeks skills competition with a bonus point to the winner.

Maybe the NHL could appeal to the UFC-MMA-WWF market by breaking ties with a fistfight

Doctor Spin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 12:43 PM
  #37
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJAnimosity View Post
There are hardly any winners scored in 5-minute OT. I'd actually like to see numbers of how many games have been decided in OT and not the shootout so far this year. Seems absolutely pointless to play a 5 minute OT to me. It's over before it even begins.
20 minute overtimes affect your and the other teams performance in the next game, even more then what we have now. 2.5 hours is quite long enough, we don't really need another whole period.

It's fine in football where there are far, far fewer OT games.

And by the theory, maybe we should just dump it straight into the shoot-out then?

I don't see much difference in OT's before and after the shoot-out change.

I'm fine with the old "skate around in OT's" so teams didn't lose their point.

However, I am not the normal fan who seems to love the SO. It was enteraining the first 10 times I saw it. Now, not so much. I mostly just get annoyed now.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 12:46 PM
  #38
DJAnimosity
the ol knifey moloko
 
DJAnimosity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Beyond the Infinite
Country: Wales
Posts: 12,893
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to DJAnimosity
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
20 minute overtimes affect your and the other teams performance in the next game, even more then what we have now. 2.5 hours is quite long enough, we don't really need another whole period.

It's fine in football where there are far, far fewer OT games.

And by the theory, maybe we should just dump it straight into the shoot-out then?

I don't see much difference in OT's before and after the shoot-out change.

I'm fine with the old "skate around in OT's" so teams didn't lose their point.

However, I am not the normal fan who seems to love the SO. It was enteraining the first 10 times I saw it. Now, not so much. I mostly just get annoyed now.
Blah, please explain why you keep bringing up the shootout when you reply to me. I am in favor of dumping the shootout. You're preaching to the choir. That's why I want a winner decided in OT. You wouldn't be playing the whole 20 minutes 90% of the time. If you put NHL players in a 4-on-4 situation for 20 minutes, I'm certain a goal would be scored. Or, like someone else suggested, play 10 minutes at 4-on-4 and 10 minutes at 3-on-3.

Anything is better than deciding a game via the shootout, IMO.

DJAnimosity is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 12:56 PM
  #39
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJAnimosity View Post
Agreed, ties are retarded. Most fans want a clear winner.
Ties were a necessary evil for regular season because of the wear and tear of the 82 game schedule. Who really wants to have back to back tripple OT games? Plust, as you get more and more fatigued risk of injury goes up more and more. In an age of trying to get sporting events shorter and shorter (a lot of the pressure by fans included), I doubt your going to get much buy in to make games longer.

As far as the whole tie thing. Coming from playing years and years of playing chess, tie's are respected by the people playing, whether the fans think it's dumb or not. I seen nothing wrong with opponents being evenly matched and that reflected on a score sheet. So I tend to applaud both teams and move on. For the playoffs? Yes, there has to be a winner. For regular season? Nah.

The again, I'm usually not in agreement with the average fan.

In the end, honestly, I don't really care that much one way or another. I'll still watch. I'll still pay my money.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 12:59 PM
  #40
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJAnimosity View Post
Blah, please explain why you keep bringing up the shootout when you reply to me. I am in favor of dumping the shootout. You're preaching to the choir. That's why I want a winner decided in OT. You wouldn't be playing the whole 20 minutes 90% of the time. If you put NHL players in a 4-on-4 situation for 20 minutes, I'm certain a goal would be scored. Or, like someone else suggested, play 10 minutes at 4-on-4 and 10 minutes at 3-on-3.

Anything is better than deciding a game via the shootout, IMO.
I think you missed that I was really using the shootout more as a marker for when things changed. Kind of like BC/AD for this discussion.

As far as it being decided before the end of the 20 minutes. One would hope so, but things rarely end up as you anticipated. I have been amazed at how long playoff hockey can go. If both goalies are hot with 2 good teams.. It could go on forever.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 01:44 PM
  #41
Aging Goalie
 
Aging Goalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lima, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
I think you missed that I was really using the shootout more as a marker for when things changed. Kind of like BC/AD for this discussion.

As far as it being decided before the end of the 20 minutes. One would hope so, but things rarely end up as you anticipated. I have been amazed at how long playoff hockey can go. If both goalies are hot with 2 good teams.. It could go on forever.
Quite frankly if there is no points for losing in OT the teams would very seldom set back and leave it up to the goalie to save the day. Lengthening out to 10 minutes and not rewarding the loss would eliminate probably 90% of the games that go to shootout now. give them the 10 minutes and then give what the majority of the new (and some old) fans like.....the shootout. Gives them a chance to settle it more than the - too short - 5 minute trap practice and keeps the game short enough to be tantalizing to the average fan and network exec.

Aging Goalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 01:53 PM
  #42
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aging Goalie View Post
Quite frankly if there is no points for losing in OT the teams would very seldom set back and leave it up to the goalie to save the day. Lengthening out to 10 minutes and not rewarding the loss would eliminate probably 90% of the games that go to shootout now. give them the 10 minutes and then give what the majority of the new (and some old) fans like.....the shootout. Gives them a chance to settle it more than the - too short - 5 minute trap practice and keeps the game short enough to be tantalizing to the average fan and network exec.
Not a fan of giving 0 points for an OT loss and not a fan of lengthening the regular season games. I personally think the show that we are putting on to find closure and declaire a victor is cheaping the game that was played. I will be in the minority, I'm sure.

But as I said, they can do whatever makes them happy. I'm not part of a demographic, so my opinion holds little weight.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 02:04 PM
  #43
Aging Goalie
 
Aging Goalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lima, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blahblah View Post
Not a fan of giving 0 points for an OT loss and not a fan of lengthening the regular season games. I personally think the show that we are putting on to find closure and declaire a victor is cheaping the game that was played. I will be in the minority, I'm sure.

But as I said, they can do whatever makes them happy. I'm not part of a demographic, so my opinion holds little weight.
Actually we are all part of a demographic. Yours is the one that doesn't like the shootout and wants things back the way they were. My veiw really has nothing to do with whether or not the shootout stays or goes as far as this topic goes. As can be seen through the thread I am a supporter of the shootout though. My view was that the games are being cheapened by the fact that the teams know they can lock it down and still get a point if they go to OT win or lose. They stop playing as hard and the game itself is slighted for it. Make it worth more to finish with a regulation win than an OT win (no mater how they got to it) and the game is being given its just dues. The players will be more motivated to continue to scrap thier way to the W because the L serves no value any more.

Aging Goalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 04:20 PM
  #44
CBJwheel
Registered User
 
CBJwheel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Findlay
Country: United States
Posts: 2,586
vCash: 500
The only change I would like to see made is zero points for a shoot-out loss, and one point for a shootout win. That way the teams are encouraged to end it in OT. A Shoot-out win should not be equal to a regulation or basic OT win.

CBJwheel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 06:48 PM
  #45
orthosrgn2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,490
vCash: 500
I very much dislike the present system of awarding points. No game should every be worth more than any other. 2 pts should be all that is ever awarded for a game. If a tie occurs in regulation then a 4 on 4 ten minute overtime should be played. Winner gets 2 pts and loser gets 0. If still tied, then a three player shoot out follows as presently occurs. The winner gets 1.5 pts and the loser get 0.5 pts.

orthosrgn2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 08:33 PM
  #46
CBJSlash
Registered User
 
CBJSlash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Bus
Posts: 7,824
vCash: 500
My Little Twist 3 POINTS for a REGULATION win, 3 POINTS for an OT Win, 2 POINTS for a SHOOTOUT win, 1 POINT for a SHOOTOUT loss.

Reason #1: You have to win the game in regulation to get the full points

Reason #2: A concession to SOs is to reward teams who get there, but it doesn't make the game have more points.

I would not be concerned with the point totals because they are only relavent to the way the scoring system is. The only reason 95 points is a benchmark is because.....we've set up the point system that way. The benchmark being 110 is no different, still the same game.

This system would more a)accurately score Wins over losses, b)keep the SO (for the fans and injury/fatigue), c)give us more meaningful OT play (and end of game play), d)make every game worth the same amount of points

CBJSlash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2008, 08:56 PM
  #47
JacketsIslesFan
 
JacketsIslesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aging Goalie View Post
But why not make it a higher reward to win in regulation? The amount of points is all relative. if 3 would be too high in your opinion make it 2 for reg win, 1 for OT W and 0 for loss no matter how.
But then you are penalizing the team who won just because they won in OT. A win is a win. I don't necessarily think this is fair either.

JacketsIslesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-09-2008, 03:09 PM
  #48
Duuuuuuuuuuvie
Registered User
 
Duuuuuuuuuuvie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Columbus
Country: United States
Posts: 230
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Duuuuuuuuuuvie
Here's what the NHL needs to do:

At the end of the game, whether it be regulation, OT, or shootout, the War room (led by Bill Clement, Dikembe Mutumbo, Dick Vitale and John Madden) awards points based on whatever criteria they use. They can award points anywhere from -1 to 10, but can only award 10 to the team who wins.


When it comes to the playoffs- this season accomplishments don't really matter, much like the allstar game. The fans should vote for who receives home ice (similar to voting for the starters). The remaining 4 wildcard spots would be picked by the War room in an attempt to build rivalries. It will be like the show "Who's line is it anyways?" where everythings made up and the points don't matter- much like the allstar game ::cough:: LeClaire ::cough::

Duuuuuuuuuuvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2008, 04:03 PM
  #49
Aging Goalie
 
Aging Goalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lima, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacketsIslesFan View Post
But then you are penalizing the team who won just because they won in OT. A win is a win. I don't necessarily think this is fair either.
I think being able to win it in regulation should be rewarded above winning in OT.

Aging Goalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2008, 09:26 AM
  #50
Aging Goalie
 
Aging Goalie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lima, Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
Just for added fuel to the fire for this topic. 4 of 8 games last night went to OT and 3 went clear to the shootout. How many of those may have been settled in regulation had the motivation of extra points been there?

Aging Goalie 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 09:34 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.