Quote:
Originally Posted by Joborule
The same solution is found by not giving loser points at all. And technically, they shouldn't have the same number as wins since a 3 point system would have a result lined up as Wins (Reg)-OTW-SOW-Loss since each win doesn't award the same amount of points.
It's a matter of principle for me. There shouldn't be any reward for losing a game, and there should be as much encouragement as possible to break ties late in regulation so the games don't have to go to OT. Although they may end up losing a point for going to extra time, having a loser point guarantees them one that they may have not gotten if they lost the lead late, which is better than nothing. Move that out of the equation then there's no incentive to buy time and play it safe.
|
By wins I mean total wins (regulation plus OT/SO wins). Team A goes 41-0-0-41 for 121 points and Team B goes 0-41-41-0 for 121 points.
I agree you get the same result going with a 2 point only or winning % system however this is not fair if you are going to decide ties with 4-on-4 OT and a SO. Hockey games are played 5-on-5 for 60 minutes so if you end up tied after 60 minutes you should get a point. You are not being rewarded for losing, you are rewarded for being tied after 60 minutes. Yes, some teams might play for the guaranteed point however they then lose the opportunity for 3 points and have to settle for 2 or 1. They are being punished for not winning in regulation.
This is a good discussion and am happy for anything better than the current system. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/SO win and 1 just seems to be the fairest. I would also consider tweaking it to make regulation and OT wins 3 points with shootout wins 2 points as long as OT was changed back to 5-on-5.