This is the only system that makes sense. Hockey is entertainment, shootouts are entertaining, they are a perfectly valid way of determining a winner; to say nothing of how entertaining they would be when a win is on the line instead of just a point.
As for the (NHL's) argument about points creating parity, it is - as someone said - an illusion.
Based on FanIn80's standings, in the East there are four teams within 2.5 games of the last Wild Card spot. In the West there's only one, but Winnipeg is only 3 games back.
In the current standings there are three Eastern teams within 5 points and two Western teams, but we all know that closing a 5-point gap is harder than closing a 2.5-win gap, due to the unequal distribution of points in games in the NHL.
My other big argument against the 3-point system is aesthetics. Remember how ugly and hard to read the four-column point tables were when the NHL did that? How obtuse it appears to non-hockey fans? If the game is going to grow, it has to appeal to people who are not currently hockey fans. Moving to a perfectly legitimate and sensible win-loss system helps make hockey more approachable. Yes, soccer uses a point system, but no other North American sport does. Every sports fan on the continent is familiar with a win-loss and games-back system.
Best system, only one which should be considered. The only change I would offer is that I think season-series should be the second tiebreaker over goal-differential.
|