Why not 3 pts for Reg win; 2 for win in OT & 1 for win in SO - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

imeubu · 01-09-2022, 10:44 PM

I'm seriously looking for an explanation as to why the NHL/PA chose not to implement this. A Poll needs to be taken. What we have now (where both teams get at least a point) is so obviously counter intuitive I am truly baffled. I must be missing something. So please send me to a link that explains why before I think too much more about it. As an ex hockey player thinking was pretty much beaten out of me... so just tell me.

The OT 3 on 3 needs to change to 10 minutes to see more players get a chance.

With 3 pts for Reg Time victory there'll be less coasting to secure at least a point as is the case now (a lot) when there's less than 2 minutes to play in reg.

This change would also mean no points for losing... SO much better. Less incentive to "go easy" even in 3 on 3 OT as it gets close to ending.

Make the last part of regulation play far more "important" and "urgent", the 3 on 3 OT more "Target Oriented" and we get back to where it should always be... if you lose... you don't get points... woke or no woke. I call for a vote damn it!! Or please.

SebC · 01-09-2022, 11:01 PM

Please don't use the rumour tag if there's no rumour. And the answer is the NHL cares more about artificial parity in the standings than any of the drawbacks of the current system.

btimbit · 01-09-2022, 11:25 PM

I'd be fine with going to the 3-2-1 system but honestly, at the end of the day, it never makes much of a difference

Zamboniman · 01-09-2022, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Why not 3 pts for Reg win; 2 for win in OT & 1 for win in SO

Because the NHL likes it the way it is.

Because it keeps teams closer to each other right up until the last few weeks and days of the season, making those games mean something, and therefore increasing revenue.

And there is no 'rumor' of this changing.

FlamesAddiction · 01-09-2022, 11:37 PM

Why not 2 points for a regulation win, 1 point for an OT or SO win, and 0 points for a loss of any type?

DeluxeMoustache · 01-10-2022, 12:24 AM

It always drove me nuts when Harry Neale kept going on with the ‘why not give both teams a point for a tie and let them play for an extra point in OT’

Some games are worth 3 points. Some are worth 2. It’s ####ed up

I think there are a couple of reasons they don’t give 3 points for a win. As other said, the artificial parity the current system creates, plus the change that comes with comparing season point totals against history

But mainly artificial parity

Plus, the current system allows them to push point totals upward for record setting purposes

dino7c · 01-10-2022, 12:27 AM

as much as its artificial they have a point (no pun)

attendance/viewership would suffer and the league would make less money if more teams were out of the race early, its never gonna happen IMO

Its more likely they add teams to the playoffs

16 of 21 teams used to make the playoffs and now 16 of 32 make it

nfotiu · 01-10-2022, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by btimbit

I'd be fine with going to the 3-2-1 system but honestly, at the end of the day, it never makes much of a difference

It makes a difference in how teams play the end of a tied game. There is a big incentive for a team to play for OT in a close game, which is the last thing they should want.

nfotiu · 01-10-2022, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dino7c

as much as its artificial they have a point (no pun)

attendance/viewership would suffer and the league would make less money if more teams were out of the race early, its never gonna happen IMO

Its more likely they add teams to the playoffs

16 of 21 teams used to make the playoffs and now 16 of 32 make it

Go to win/loss, and add a play in round. That makes everything more exciting.

If 7-10 seeds have a play in round, there is incentive to play for the higher seeds, and more teams stay in it to the end, and teams stop playing for OT.

Strange Brew · 01-10-2022, 07:47 AM

I want 2 points for a winner, zero for a loser. Embrace whatever approach you use to determine a winner for each game.

I guess I've learned to accept their weird math. It's more the idea you have a game with a winner and no loser that bugs me.

Reggie Dunlop · 01-10-2022, 08:53 AM

It's a shame there has to be winners and losers when everybody gives their best.

transplant99 · 01-10-2022, 08:58 AM

Its such a weird thing to complain about.

The system is the same for every team for every game all regular season.

There is no benefit to any single club over any other.

I hate the shootout with a passion after initially thinking it would be great.

Truth is though, that teams dont win or lose games because of them, they win or lose shootouts. Which is why awarding a point to the losers makes sense.

gvitaly · 01-10-2022, 09:14 AM

The 3-2-1 point system is unlikely to change much. It could be a difference for a team making or missing the playoffs, but for the most part it won't matter.

Them main reason why I don't see it making a difference in the NHL is because teams don't actually fight tooth and nail to win the presidents trophy, or division titles for that matter. These are nice to have. The fight is for one of the top 8 spots, and that's it. The best teams simply wouldn't have much of an incentive to win in regulation rather than OT.

If you compare the NHL to the premiere league, there having the best point record is the biggest title(not the cup). As a result the best teams look at anything less than a win as disappointing. In addition you only have 4 teams that qualify for the champions league and so on, so there's much more competition for positioning.

EldrickOnIce · 01-10-2022, 09:18 AM

Not sure why we are talking "artificial" parity.
Every year somebody maths it out and the end result s virtually the same. 3 points for a win would artificially inflate the optics of the disparity between teams, and that's the last thing anyone wants.

CSharp · 01-10-2022, 09:27 AM

Much easier if only one point is awarded per game and no points awarded for any game that's a loss. Ever since the games must end in one team in a win and the other one a loss, it's so easy to deal with. It's like if there are 82 games in a season, a team can have 82 points if that team wins all 82 games - simple. If a team loses 82 games, even they went into OT, that team gets zero points. Then, in the stats column, it's gonna show that team lost a total of 82 games with x amount of games lost in OT or SO. These stats would then be used for tie-breakers after total goal differentials and division rivalry win/loss against each other to determine placing. So simple - binary (1's and 0's) is the way to go. Even an athlete, when out of breath, can tell you if the team has won or lost a game.

CSharp · 01-10-2022, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

It's a shame there has to be winners and losers when everybody gives their best.

There's no consolation prize going for the Cup.

SuperMatt18 · 01-10-2022, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

I hate the shootout with a passion after initially thinking it would be great.

Truth is though, that teams dont win or lose games because of them, they win or lose shootouts. Which is why awarding a point to the losers makes sense.

This.

This is why a win-loss system doesn't make sense, as long as the shootout exists then punishing a team for losing in the SO would take away from the game.

IMO the best two options are to go to continuous OT and then a win-loss system makes more sense.

Or keep the shootout and go to a 3-2-1 point system to really try to incentivize winning in regulation.

I think you see more excitement with a 3-2-1 point system personally, today teams are happy just to get to OT to try to get the "extra" point.

powderjunkie · 01-10-2022, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

It always drove me nuts when Harry Neale kept going on with the ‘why not give both teams a point for a tie and let them play for an extra point in OT’

Some games are worth 3 points. Some are worth 2. It’s ####ed up

I think there are a couple of reasons they don’t give 3 points for a win. As other said, the artificial parity the current system creates, plus the change that comes with comparing season point totals against history

But mainly artificial parity

Plus, the current system allows them to push point totals upward for record setting purposes

Historical comparisons are already extremely limited. 70 76 80 84 82 game seasons. And then the loser point coming in.

Though this is probably the longest stretch of consistency since original 6 era, it's not like there are many significant thresholds associated with team points. ~96 is generally playoff cutoff...110+ is really good. I can't think of any point totals that really stand out for me

Bill Bumface · 01-10-2022, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Why not 2 points for a regulation win, 1 point for an OT or SO win, and 0 points for a loss of any type?

Have you seen overtime lately? It's awful.

There needs to be some incentive to take chances and avoid going to a shootout instead of skating it out of the zone 10 times and passing back to your goalie to keep possession.

Strange Brew · 01-10-2022, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its such a weird thing to complain about.

The system is the same for every team for every game all regular season.

There is no benefit to any single club over any other.

I hate the shootout with a passion after initially thinking it would be great.

Truth is though, that teams dont win or lose games because of them, they win or lose shootouts. Which is why awarding a point to the losers makes sense.

You could argue that OT/shootout is a separate event from the game itself which ended in a tie and each team was awarded a point.

Except they only hold those events in case of a tie so it's not really accurate. They are held to theoretically decide a winner, not just award bonus points in certain situations.