OT loss point - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

zukes · 09-26-2012, 09:40 AM

It seems that in the roll over this morning it has added OT loss points. I was for this when we started, and not just now that I have 3 of them, lol.

Can we put this to a vote and possibly keep it? I know it artificially keeps things close, but honestly, it is the worst feeling when you battle so hard all game, go to a gruelling OT and then lose and have nothing for your efforts.

I also think that if people are closer to a playoff spot, the league will be better served at season's end.

Not sure how to make a poll, but if someone could that would be great.

OTL point:

Yes
No

zukes · 09-26-2012, 09:45 AM

Clearly I vote yes.

king_amonte · 09-26-2012, 09:56 AM

I vote yes, without it I have nothing......LOL

CsInMyBlood · 09-26-2012, 10:04 AM

I vote yes, need all the help I can get.

silentsim · 09-26-2012, 10:06 AM

should be changed at the beginning of next season if most want it, shouldn't mess with standings once its started imo

zukes · 09-26-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silentsim

should be changed at the beginning of next season if most want it, shouldn't mess with standings once its started imo

The standings did change overnight it seems. I don't think it changed much.

Russic · 09-26-2012, 10:38 AM

My vote is yes.

zukes · 09-26-2012, 11:36 AM

Jobo has said that he will not be doing a mid-season change no matter what, which makes this moot.

Joborule · 09-26-2012, 11:40 AM

This was not intentional if indeed this is the case and the settings will be fixed for next advance.

As well if a change to the OTL was to be done, it wouldn't take effect this season since games have been play under a system where OLT wasn't awarded. For consistency sake as well fairness, the season would be played out with no OTL being awarded.

For discussion sake though, why is OTL necessary? Aside from the benefits of an extra point, why should losing be rewarded? If there were shootouts I would kinda see the merit since games may not be completed under regular hockey play, but with continuous OT, the team that won earned the GWG and the team that lost gave up the GWG. Why should there be a reward for still losing the game although you played longer? In the end you still lost fair and square. I don't find the argument of being rewarded for playing so long and hard a good one.

Diverce · 09-26-2012, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joborule

This was not intentional if indeed this is the case and the settings will be fixed for next advance.

As well if a change to the OTL was to be done, it wouldn't take effect this season since games have been play under a system where OLT wasn't awarded. For consistency sake as well fairness, the season would be played out with no OTL being awarded.

For discussion sake though, why is OTL necessary? Aside from the benefits of an extra point, why should losing be rewarded? If there were shootouts I would kinda see the merit since games may not be completed under regular hockey play, but with continuous OT, the team that won earned the GWG and the team that lost gave up the GWG. Why should there be a reward for still losing the game although you played longer? In the end you still lost fair and square. I don't find the argument of being rewarded for playing so long and hard a good one.

I agree that the winner should get 2 points, loser gets none. But I can't see why, if it's possible to after an ot game if no winner is decided then the the two teams are awarded a tie and each team gets 1 point. But, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that feels that. I liked the old scoring system.

But since there is continuous ot, I am ok with the scoring system.

CsInMyBlood · 09-26-2012, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joborule

This was not intentional if indeed this is the case and the settings will be fixed for next advance.

As well if a change to the OTL was to be done, it wouldn't take effect this season since games have been play under a system where OLT wasn't awarded. For consistency sake as well fairness, the season would be played out with no OTL being awarded.

For discussion sake though, why is OTL necessary? Aside from the benefits of an extra point, why should losing be rewarded? If there were shootouts I would kinda see the merit since games may not be completed under regular hockey play, but with continuous OT, the team that won earned the GWG and the team that lost gave up the GWG. Why should there be a reward for still losing the game although you played longer? In the end you still lost fair and square. I don't find the argument of being rewarded for playing so long and hard a good one.

Basically the way it is you get a point for going the extra mile and not getting beat in regulation. You finish regulation tied, you get a point. You win in overtime you get that extra point. I do understand that logic.

That said, I do understand that if the rules were no extra point in overtime for a loss, it should stay that way.

Joborule · 09-26-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Basically the way it is you get a point for going the extra mile and not getting beat in regulation.

I find that such a weak merit in having the extra point for Continuous OT situations. That to appears nothing more than the participant ribbons you get in elementary school. Like something to make yourself feel better; "At least I didn't get beat in regulation."

zukes · 09-26-2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joborule

I find that such a weak merit in having the extra point for Continuous OT situations. That to appears nothing more than the participant ribbons you get in elementary school. Like something to make yourself feel better; "At least I didn't get beat in regulation."

It does make me feel better

CsInMyBlood · 09-26-2012, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joborule

I find that such a weak merit in having the extra point for Continuous OT situations. That to appears nothing more than the participant ribbons you get in elementary school. Like something to make yourself feel better; "At least I didn't get beat in regulation."

For some people, not getting beat in regulation is a small victory.

Russic · 09-26-2012, 01:54 PM

At this point for me I'm just arguing to get every point I can.

secol · 09-26-2012, 02:57 PM

i think a point for OTL is a good idea. nobody really plays for the OTL, it's just something you get for clawing back or holding on

alternatively i wouldn't mind shootouts

......then again i believe it'd be manual goalies so might be unfair if people never played goalie before, but following the argument of skill........

Joborule · 09-26-2012, 06:12 PM

Basically OTL is giving a point for the sake of giving a point. Still not convinced it's neccessary.

In each of the 3 times I've gone to overtime (if I recall correctly) I've lost each of them. Two of them in triple OT, and one in single. Each time I lost it sucked since I've gone so far, and may have vastly outplayed my opponent to be blunt, but in the end came out with nothing. But I don't see how I should be rewarded for losing cause in the end, I still lost, even if I deserved a point based on my play.

secol · 09-26-2012, 06:46 PM

i dunno i feel in the regular season since it's not a life or death situation it makes it interesting.....also tight playoff races will be even more interesting

Joborule · 09-26-2012, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secol

i dunno i feel in the regular season since it's not a life or death situation it makes it interesting.....also tight playoff races will be even more interesting

A W-L system would still have tight races. The OTL point doesn't really change anything. It just gives an illusion that it's closer than it is. 42-33 vs 40-35 is the exact same as 40-29-4 vs 38-33-4. You still have to win 2 games (4 points) while they lose 2 (with no point reward) to catch up.

Diemenz · 09-26-2012, 07:10 PM

I personally think the overtime loser point is pathetic. Rewarding a loss is a joke in my books.

I vote for nothing when you lose.