Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
In my scenario every game would be worth 2 points. One to the winner and one to the loser. The only thing the winner would "win" is an additional tie breaker.
|
Right, I missed that. So basically the standings would become a dual point system. You have your regular season points from wins and ties and then your secondary point system with "OT-wins" that you would use as a tiebreaker should teams have the same number of regular points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken0042
In my mind I see a bigger problem with some games being worth 3 points and others being worth 2 points than I do with a winner and loser getting the same points. Really- the game as it was meant to be played ended in a tie. Now they are just jockeying for some standings space.
Don't get me wrong, I was one of the ones who liked the idea of the shootout at first. Then I saw what it did to games that were tied with 7 minutes left in the 3rd; and changed my mind. I would rather see 60 or 65 minutes of exciting hockey than watching 2 teams play it safe for the last 7-12 minutes.
|
I think the 3 point system solves this nicely. Teams that win in regulation get a definite advantage over teams that win in OT. Teams that win in OT have an advantage over teams that lose in OT. And teams that lose in OT have an advantage over teams that lose in regulation.
I think that will properly motivate everyone to win games in regulation above all else and it will keep things simple as you only really have to consult the points to know where your team is in the standings.
Then, if two teams are still tied in points, the tiebreaker can be Head-to-Head season records between the teams or GF/GA instead of "who wins the most in OT".