QOTD: 3 Point Games

[Bingo]

thoughts on three point games?

They certainly do what they were intended to do, that is keep the races tight. Last night almost every team around the Flames picked up a point which hurts, but the Flames have won a lot of games in OT and the shootout this season.

What would you do with the set up?

[codynw]

I hate them. If you lose, you should get nothing.

[Resolute 14]

In a perfect world, two points for a win, one for a tie, zero for a loss. Since the league hated the number of ties in the old system, go with 5 minutes of 4 on 4 then five minutes of 3 on 3 in OT. If the old AJHL rules are any indication, you would likely have less than 10% of overtime games go undecided in that scenario.

Given the shootout abomination isn't going away (yet), I like the 2 for a win 1 for a SO win and 0 for a loss solution. Failure should not be rewarded, and if we are going to argue that a shootout win is a success, then a shootout loss is failure.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by codynw

I hate them. If you lose, you should get nothing.

If they are going to remove the loser point, then the shootout must also go with it.

[Textcritic]

Should option 2 read, "3 points for reg win, 2 pts for OT/SH win, 1 pt for loss"?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If they are going to remove the loser point, then the shootout must also go with it.

I don't disagree that the shootout should go, but what does the loser point being taken out have to do with it?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by codynw

I don't disagree that the shootout should go, but what does the loser point being taken out have to do with it?

No team should be punished for losing a gimmick skills competition. So long as there is a shootout, no one should walk away from it empty.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Should option 2 read, "3 points for reg win, 2 pts for OT/SH win, 1 pt for loss"?

I voted for that option, assuming that is the case. Been saying it for a while, the 3 point system makes the most sense. The argument that it skews the record book is bogus. It has already been skewed with the addition of overtime and the shootout. No one cares about historic point totals.

[Tiger]

does it really change the standings much at all?

[N-E-B]

Straight win-loss and use the "games back" system used in baseball. All or nothing.

[Huntingwhale]

The format will never change, as it gives the illusion of parity when you have teams to close to each other in the standings. I remember back when Keenan was coach, teams 1-13 in the West were seperated by something like 7 pts at one point. Bettman gave an interview about how this was exactly what the league was looking to do to make it so each team has a chance to make the playoffs. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

It's annoying as hell when you see the Flames close to another team in the standings (Jets) and they are ahead of us and we have more wins. Same with a team like Colorado who has 6 less wins then us, yet is only 4pts back because of all the OT losses.

[GioforPM]

I prefer 3 points for reg win. I view the one point as a point for a regulation tie.

This keeps the number of points available for each game consistent, rather than variable between 2 and 3.

[Igster]

Doesn't really matter how they do it. Personally, I just think every game should be worth the same amount of points.

[heep223]

2 points for reg/OT win, 1 point if you need a shootout to win, 0 points for being a loser.

I've always been in the minority in that I don't find the shootout "gimmicky". Breakaways are a hockey skill that teams are better or worse at. It also tests quality of goaltending.

If you lose, you should lose with 0 points. If you lose in a shootout, you have less skill and/or worse goaltending than the other team. I don't see it as a gimmick and I don't feel bad for a team getting robbed points in the shootout.

[Coach]

I said other. 2 pts for winning no points for losing. Regardless.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by heep223

...I've always been in the minority in that I don't find the shootout "gimmicky". Breakaways are a hockey skill that teams are better or worse at. It also tests quality of goaltending...

Shootouts are not a test of the same skills as skating and shooting on a breakaway, and some of the NHL's best goaltenders have been really terrible in shootouts.

[codynw]

The ideal solution for me would be

2 points for regulation / OT win.
1 point for tie.
0 points for loss.
No shootout.

If they want to minimize the number of ties, have five minutes of 4 on 4, followed by five minutes of 3 on 3.

[troutman]

Other.

No O/T in regular season. (I'd be ok with 5 minute 5 on 5, but no 4 on 4 or shootouts). No loser points.

[nfotiu]

Straight win/losses. 3 points for a win would be my second choice. Keeping ties would be my 3rd choice.

The current system is the worst possible system that could ever be imagined, and I still can't believe it wasn't laughed away for its ridiculousness when it was originally proposed.

It is unfathomable that the powers that be can't see anything wrong with having an incentive to play for ties. As the games get more meaningful, they should be the most exciting, instead they are dull as everyone plays for a tie.

Take away the OTL, and no one plays for OT, and there are less shootouts, therefore. the shootout becomes less meaningful in the standings.

[Scoutski]

Originally Posted by Igster

Doesn't really matter how they do it. Personally, I just think every game should be worth the same amount of points.

This is what I'd want to see, don't like that some games can result in 3 points and some can result in 2.

I guess I'd be okay with 2 points for a win, extended OT with some 3v3 time and putting ties back in for 1 point each.