Time to make all games worth three points?

[Steve Bozek]

I realize this is a subject that has been beaten to death in the past.
But it seems to me that with a shortened season, and the difference between first and last place in the previous short season being so small, that it doesn't make sense to have some games generate 3 points and some only 2. Why not use the short season to test 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for the win in OT or SO, and 1 for a loss in OT or SO?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

I wish they'd try that. No chance they will unfortunately.

[Roof-Daddy]

I can't see the league ever changing this.

It keeps more teams in the race longer, which is better for overall revenues.

[MrMastodonFarm]

First two posts nailed it, it makes the most sense but it won't happen.

All games should be worth three points. When the game goes past regulation the teams split those three points.

[nfotiu]

Go to wins losses or ditch the shootouts and have ties. Anything is better than a point system that encourages everyone to play for a tie, and seeds its playoffs based on who is the best at taking the most games to ot.

Gimicky, confusing point systems is no way to win over new fans. Encouraging teams to play for ties is no way to keep the fans you have.

[Rubicant]

It's past time, but that doesn't mean it will happen.

[MisterJoji]

I've heard the argument that it would decrease parity, and the owners would rather have more teams within striking distance of the playoffs to increase ticket sales. However, I think it would make the races even tighter. If your 6 points out of a playoff spot, you only need 2 wins and your opponent to go on a 2 game losing streak to catch up. The top teams in the league would likely have a wider gap and harder to catch for teams below them due to a large amount of regulation wins, but people care more about the race for the last few playoff spots than the race for who wins the division.

[Mister Yamoto]

No way. It's bad enough that there are two kinds of losses. Now we make it so there are also two kinds of wins?

Just get rid of the loser point. Sport is all about winning and losing. Have a system that is all about winning and losing.

[nik-]

gotta manufacture those playoff runs.

[MisterJoji]

If it's a scenario of 2 points for any kind of win and 0 points for any kind of loss vs. current system, I vote keep it the same. Personally it pains me less to at least get a point after a SO loss. But 3 point system would be ideal.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

If it's a scenario of 2 points for any kind of win and 0 points for any kind of loss vs. current system, I vote keep it the same. Personally it pains me less to at least get a point after a SO loss. But 3 point system would be ideal.

Exactly what I think - all games should have 3 pts up for grabs, but I don't want the NBA, 2 or nothing system

[Zulu29]

I don't understand this three point stuff. Why make it complicated? You win-2 points, you lose-0 points. Doesn't matter of you lose in OT, regulation or shoot out, zero points. Keep it simple.

[FanIn80]

Screw three point games. Take away the loser point instead.

Regulation win = 2pts
Regulation loss = 0pts

OT win = 2pts
OT loss = 0pts

SOW = 2pts
SOL = 1pt

If you lose the game in regulation or overtime, who cares? You still lost, so you get nothing. Finishing OT tied is like finishing the game tied, so each team gets a single point. The shootout winner gets an extra point for winning the shootout, but that's it.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Screw three point games. Take away the loser point instead.

Regulation win = 2pts
Regulation loss = 0pts

OT win = 2pts
OT loss = 0pts

SOW = 2pts
SOL = 1pt

If you lose the game in regulation or overtime, who cares? You still lost, so you get nothing. Finishing OT tied is like finishing the game tied, so each team gets a single point. The shootout winner gets an extra point for winning the shootout, but that's it.

Oh god, that's the only possible point system worse than the one we have. Then not only would teams play for a tie for the third period, they'd play for it for overtime too.

[Zamboniman]

I've always had a problem with the idea of getting a point for taking longer to lose.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Oh god, that's the only possible point system worse than the one we have. Then not only would teams play for a tie for the third period, they'd play for it for overtime too.

No way. The majority of games are against divisional and conference opponents. The 2 point differential for winning in regulation or OT is worth much more than the 1 point differential for going to the shootout.

The inter-conference games might see teams play for a tie, but only the crappy teams will ever do that so who cares? If it's two crappy teams playing each other, nobody's going to be watching it anyway.

[AR_Six]

^This does not explain why under the current format teams play to conservatively at the end of the third in order to "get the game to overtime" and pick up the extra point. If you were correct, they would go all-out to win it in the last 5 minutes. They do not. Hence, I agree 100% with nfotiu. Bad idea.

I like the 3 point system and endorse it as the ideal solution if we're going to have a shootout. I would also be amenable to simply removing the loser point altogether but am much more hesitant to subscribe to that because I hate the shootout and hate the idea that it would be even more significant in determining the standings than it currently is. If they were to eliminate the loser point I would prefer 5 mins of 4on4, followed by continuous 3 on 3. I bet most of those 3 on 3's would be shorter than the shootout.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

I don't understand this three point stuff. Why make it complicated? You win-2 points, you lose-0 points. Doesn't matter of you lose in OT, regulation or shoot out, zero points. Keep it simple.

Because many of us believe that a skills competition shouldn't have that kind of impact in a professional league. I'd much rather have a system with a tie over one with a shootout, but I understand the futility of arguing against the shootout when the people at the top love it so much. So instead limiting it's impact or force teams to try to avoid it should be a high priority.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^This does not explain why under the current format teams play to conservatively at the end of the third in order to "get the game to overtime" and pick up the extra point. If you were correct, they would go all-out to win it in the last 5 minutes. They do not. Hence, I agree 100% with nfotiu. Bad idea.

I like the 3 point system and endorse it as the ideal solution if we're going to have a shootout. I would also be amenable to simply removing the loser point altogether but am much more hesitant to subscribe to that because I hate the shootout and hate the idea that it would be even more significant in determining the standings than it currently is. If they were to eliminate the loser point I would prefer 5 mins of 4on4, followed by continuous 3 on 3. I bet most of those 3 on 3's would be shorter than the shootout.

I'm not sure 3 on 3 ot is a whole lot more valid than shootout for determining winners. It definitely favours teams that are built for a certain style. Maybe shootout haters should love the idea of ditching the otl, as we'd certainly see a lot less games go to the shootout if they are all or nothing, and shootout ability may turn out to mean less in the standings than it currently does.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Because many of us believe that a skills competition shouldn't have that kind of impact in a professional league. I'd much rather have a system with a tie over one with a shootout, but I understand the futility of arguing against the shootout when the people at the top love it so much. So instead limiting it's impact or force teams to try to avoid it should be a high priority.

For the record I hate the shoot out but I also hate loser points. Ditch the shoot out for a 4 on 4 OT and then continuous 3 on 3 and I'd be down with that.