GM meetings in Florida

[Finger Cookin]

The standings barely change with the different points method, but it makes for good fan service to bring it up and it's good fodder for forums and 24/7 sports coverage.

Really, I'd just like to see the rules enforced instead of the officials managing the game. Get rid of calls that are only made in lopsided games. Don't put the whistle away in the third, and down the regular season stretch drive, and in the playoffs. Call penalties every time they occur.

I mean, compare it to other sports. Maybe I miss the nuance of calls in football - but holding penalties get called all the time, not just when the team with the ball has a big lead. Offsides aren't ignored because the game is close.

What about baseball? Balls and strikes are certainly subjective. But you don't get called safe when your're close to being safe if you're attempting a comeback. You don't suddenly give the opponent a base on balls with 3 balls when you're pitching with a big lead.

Enforce the rules. Let the game be what it is. It doesn't need to be more complicated or tweaked any more than that.

My two cents.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Hey Connor, It's Mess

The regulation losses in that chart are the RW and OW combined for some reason, but the actual point totals are correct.

Yeah, not sure what I was doing there. Since it's the zero points column, the totals are still right.

[timbit]

The top European leagues have been using the 3-2-1-0 point system for a long time.
Why?
It makes sense.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I don't like this because while it makes sense mathematically, it devalues an overtime win and makes it less exciting.



All or nothing. Use the "games back" system like Major League Baseball and the NBA. Part of the thrill of extra innings is it's still all or nothing. You win or you lose, no more in between.

The only way this works is if either the NHL implements sudden death overtime, or eliminates the shootout and reinstitutes ties. Neither of these things will happen.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

The standings barely change with the different points method, but it makes for good fan service to bring it up and it's good fodder for forums and 24/7 sports coverage.

Really, I'd just like to see the rules enforced instead of the officials managing the game. Get rid of calls that are only made in lopsided games. Don't put the whistle away in the third, and down the regular season stretch drive, and in the playoffs. Call penalties every time they occur.

I mean, compare it to other sports. Maybe I miss the nuance of calls in football - but holding penalties get called all the time, not just when the team with the ball has a big lead. Offsides aren't ignored because the game is close.

What about baseball? Balls and strikes are certainly subjective. But you don't get called safe when your're close to being safe if you're attempting a comeback. You don't suddenly give the opponent a base on balls with 3 balls when you're pitching with a big lead.

Enforce the rules. Let the game be what it is. It doesn't need to be more complicated or tweaked any more than that.

My two cents.

Actually you do. The umps strike zone changes based on count and score. It's a subjective zone subject to human bias.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I agree with those who see the merits for the introduction of a 3-point system for all games. I wanted to address Lamarillo's opinion, and why the League can never return to a 2-or-nothing system for awarding points. The shootout changes everything: in a league in which wins are occasionally awarded for gimmicky skills competition a team should never be penalized for their failure to come up short in a glorified coin-flip.

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I don't like this because while it makes sense mathematically, it devalues an overtime win and makes it less exciting.

All or nothing. Use the "games back" system like Major League Baseball and the NBA. Part of the thrill of extra innings is it's still all or nothing. You win or you lose, no more in between.

I used to think the same, that the NHL should just do a simple W-L system, because I felt a 3-point system would penalize teams for having to go past regulation, which I felt wasn't fair.

But now, I've flipped my opinion for three reasons:

One, the concept is that every game is worth 3 points. It eliminates the presence of a imaginary point after regulation.

Two, the structure of play for overtime and the shootout is not in the realm of regulation hockey anymore. So there shouldn't be the same type of reward as if the game was completed in regulation.

And three, this reduces the temptation for teams to play the final minutes of regulation safe if the game is tied. There's still a risk/reward decision to make, since you risk getting no points at all if you end up losing, but you gain an 'extra' point (or two) if you can pull off winning in regulation. This could lead to teams playing with more determination to close out the 3rd period of games; especially in the final stretch of the season when points become even more valuable. It's for this reason that I think the NHL would have the most to gain since it should make the product even more exciting, which is always the league's goal.

So even though the loser point would still exist, it's value is decreased. It would lessen it's impact on the standings, and encourage teams to play for the win in regulation, rather than trying to get into overtime, since they would lose out on 1 possible point. The value of regulation wins and OT/SO would be distinct, and more apportaitly recognized in the team's record and in the standings.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Just think of how this presents itself to the casual/new/potential fan. Not very well. Hockey is losing (and I begrudgingly agree it has to) what attracted so many people to the game; it's toughness.

The hard hitting, glove dropping nature of the game that separated it from it's competition is going the way of the dodo. Which would be fine if fast paced, edge of your seat, chance swapping action was in it's place, but instead I'd argue we're back to where we were in the late 90's/early 2000's where coaches have mastered the offense out of the game in favour of perfect defense.

I don't see why it isn't time to revamp the game a little, just like we did over a decade ago, to reset the game so to speak, and force coaches to have to adapt all over again.

Tre nailed it, literally as soon as the teams are set in the zone it's like shooting into a brick wall and a good chunk of a 60 minute hockey game is players just kind of skating and passing around aimlessly, hoping for a shred of daylight. Sure, it feels great when one finally does get through, but there's very little threatening offense in the game today. It's just about boringly keeping possession until maybe something opens up.

I am not sure what to fix per se, but I agree with you here. I also don't think it is a matter of disliking the game (finding something missing is not disliking the game, come on Cecil).

For me, what is missing is that raw emotion. There are too many sterile games these days. Team A scores a goal. Then they play shut-down defence that just smothers the life out of the hockey game. Team B has a lot of shot attempts and possession, but they just keep getting blocked or are easy saves. There aren't very many hits, not many scrums, not many fights (not that I say bring back a couple fights a game, but that sure did spur emotion in a game).

Coaches have smothered the life out of the games. Tight defensive hockey. Shot blocking. Watch what you say or do when you are up so you don't take a penalty or give the other team something to rally around.

It is still a great game, but it has become sterile too often. Some games are just fantastic though, that's for sure.

One thing that I feel could really improve on the emotion aspect is having 4 teams from each division make the playoffs and actually have to play one another, rather than go the wildcard route. It is more fair to go the wildcard route, but having increased rivalries within a division would benefit the emotion side of the game at least. Just a thought. Sucks when you are in a really tough division and you end up out of the playoffs, and look at the other division in the conference and see a team sneak in with 10+ less points than your team, but maybe that is the trade-off for building rivalries again.

[powderjunkie]

Would love 3 pt games, but it makes little business sense for the league, as they want as many teams as possible in the race as long as possible.

The net front congestion is a big one for me. I'd be interested in exploring some 'illegal defence' possibilities, though I'm not sure how to achieve it without bastardizing the ice surface/design...perhaps a secondary crease where only 2 defensive players are allowed.

Or an even crazier idea (that I'm not actually suggesting, but would be interested to see experimented) - only 4 players allowed in the defensive zone. I suspect it would just leave to overly cautious defencemen on offence, but it would certainly help with spacing and the transition game. Could be some interesting strategy - if your bogged down in your own zone and a forward chased out to the blue line (but O team maintains possession) the defender could exit the zone and switch out. I'm sure many will call this crazy, but I'd argue that basketball (and soccer for those into that sort of thing) can be the most beautiful sport(s) when teams pass the ball well. Hockey has some moments of beauty too, but never more than old Red Wing power plays with Lidstrom/Datsyuk where the puck moved between players with video game like precision.

I think I've actually talked myself more into it. Non transition 5 on 5 goals feel 'flukey' more often than not, whereas powerplay goals still feel like legit skill plays.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I'm not sure I buy this argument.

What would change exactly? Leading teams would play tighter? Nope. The prospect of giving up a lead and not gaining the full benefit of the two points is already causing teams to tighten up. With so many 3 point games winning in regulation is important enough. The idea that teams aren't already doing everything possible to protect the lead is asinine.

Trailing teams would push just as hard as they do now knowing that they need to not give up the 3 points.

Tied games are already extremely cautious because neither team wants to give up that precious two point swing when they can get their guaranteed loser point. I guess you could argue things would get tighter because now they'd be avoiding a 3 point swing but as the season progresses the team needing the 3 points the most would have more incentive to push harder due to the benefit of the extra points. So even that argument has holes. That benefit isn't quite there right now because it is only 1 extra point vs OT. So a team trailing in the standings doesn't have as much incentive to open things up in the current system.

This is pretty much my line of thinking as well. With the exception of teams trailing in the standings near the end of the season, teams aren't going to suddenly open things up in the third to push for the extra regulation point IMO.

For instance if Calgary is up on Edmonton one point in the standings at game 53 of the regular season and they are tied with 6 minutes left in regulation is there really going to be much incentive for coaches to push their team to gamble for the regulation win?

If Edmonton pushes for the regulation win they can go up two points on Calgary, but if they give up a goal as as result of pushing too hard then they fall 4 pints back.

If they sit on the tie until OT then at worst they fall 2 points back of the Flames and can tie them if they win in OT/SO.

If coaches can choose between higher reward for greater risk I still think they choose the safe play most of the time. At the end of the day one point is still better than zero.


I mean you will see teams that are falling out of playoff contention early trying to push for 3 ppints but since these are generally bad teams I think they will more often than not shoot themselves in the foot.

Teams just outside the playoffs near the end of the season will push hard for the extra point but this is only usually 4-5 teams out of 30 so it won't have a big impact on the vast majority of games IMO.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Would love 3 pt games, but it makes little business sense for the league, as they want as many teams as possible in the race as long as possible.

Although the range would be further spread out, the race should still be close points wise, since 3 points is a lot.

For instance, if a team is 6 points ahead right now, that's 3 games they would have to win in order to catch up. (Assuming the other team doesn't play games or loses theirs) In a 3-point system, that same scenario would be 9 points, and yes they would have to be regulation wins. But 9 points is 'easier' to catch up on with a 3 points system, than it would be with 2 points. But it would most certainly penalize losing more; especially in overtime.

[Weitz]

Even though it would never happen, I wish it was just Wins and Losses and 5 on 5 overtime was played until the game ended just like in the playoffs.

[JerryUnderscore]

I love the 3-2-1 point system. However, I wonder if tied games with 10 minutes left become a kind of prisoners dilemma. If you play defensively and make it to overtime you're going to get 1 or 2 points. If you try to push for the regulation win you risk 3 or 0 points.

Mathematically, I'm not sure what's the better option. It would probably depend on who you're playing (division vs non-division conference vs non-conference) and where you are in the standings.

The AHL should explore this, but since the Pacific division plays a different number of games than the rest of the league, changing the point system might make things even more difficult to calculate.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I don't really buy either of your arguments. It honestly just sounds like you don't like hockey and your version of it isn't the actual sport...

Hockey will never be teams just trading chances back and forth and it never has been.

A lot of long-time fans find today's games often boring. And there was a time when there were several odd-man rushes a period. The term 'end to end action' is synonymous with exciting hockey. It's also something you rarely see anymore.

Nostalgia may be a part of it. But that isn't all of it. Eric Duhatschek knows a bit about hockey. Fair to say he's a fan of the sport. And he was on the radio yesterday criticizing how dull and structured the game is today. His take is that in tight games nobody changes the stifling systems they play, and more goals would make teams have to play more aggressively to come back from behind.

You think the NHL is great as it is - that's fine. But the NHL isn't worried about you. You'll be following the sport regardless. What it has to concern itself with is older fans tuning out, and younger people not becoming fans in the first place. All major professional sports are seeing declines in audiences. The people who run the league cannot take it for granted that the product on the ice is fine and doesn't need to change. If a casual turns on a game on a Wednesday night in January and nothing exciting happens on the ice in a period, he'll go back to watching Game of Thrones or playing Call of Duty, and maybe not even bother switching to the hockey game next time.

[EldrickOnIce]

Is there anywhere that lists full standings?
Meaning something like:
W L OTW OTL SOW SOL

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

For instance if Calgary is up on Edmonton one point in the standings at game 53 of the regular season and they are tied with 6 minutes left in regulation is there really going to be much incentive for coaches to push their team to gamble for the regulation win?

At present, they have an incentive to NOT settle the game in regulation. Keep the game tied, take no chances at all, and get the guaranteed point.

When the loser point in OT was introduced, the percentage of games settled in regulation dropped. When the shootout was introduced, it dropped again.

Why would any coach be stupid enough to take risks in a tied game when he can just tell his players to trap away till the clock runs out, and still have an even-money chance of getting two points? But if going to OT meant losing out on the chance of three points, it would take away the incentive to drag the game out.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of long-time fans find today's games often boring. And there was a time when there were several odd-man rushes a period. The term 'end to end action' is synonymous with exciting hockey. It's also something you rarely see anymore.

Nostalgia may be a part of it. But that isn't all of it. Eric Duhatschek knows a bit about hockey. Fair to say he's a fan of the sport. And he was on the radio yesterday criticizing how dull and structured the game is today. His take is that in tight games nobody changes the stifling systems they play, and more goals would make teams have to play more aggressively to come back from behind.

You think the NHL is great as it is - that's fine. But the NHL isn't worried about you. You'll be following the sport regardless. What it has to concern itself with is older fans tuning out, and younger people not becoming fans in the first place. All major professional sports are seeing declines in audiences. The people who run the league cannot take it for granted that the product on the ice is fine and doesn't need to change. If a casual turns on a game on a Wednesday night in January and nothing exciting happens on the ice in a period, he'll go back to watching Game of Thrones or playing Call of Duty, and maybe not even bother switching to the hockey game next time.

Do casual fans even watch hockey anymore?

A lot of the people I know who used to watch hockey think the game is too boring to watch now. They might tune in if their team is in the playoffs but otherwise they don't really care.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of long-time fans find today's games often boring. And there was a time when there were several odd-man rushes a period. The term 'end to end action' is synonymous with exciting hockey. It's also something you rarely see anymore.

Nostalgia may be a part of it. But that isn't all of it. Eric Duhatschek knows a bit about hockey. Fair to say he's a fan of the sport. And he was on the radio yesterday criticizing how dull and structured the game is today. His take is that in tight games nobody changes the stifling systems they play, and more goals would make teams have to play more aggressively to come back from behind.

I do think nostalgia is a big part of it. Another significant part is that, comparatively, the average player in the 80s was horse poop compared to the average player now. I've occasionally looked at old games on youtube and the skating is nowhere near the same, defenders weren't nearly as effective, and the "stifling systems" Eric talks about are more the existence of an actual system rather than the general lack thereof back in the run-and-gun days.

I think the only effective (and unrealistic) way to increase scoring in the NHL is to find a way to handicap the defensemen. They're too good at closing down players, blocking / deflecting shots and generally keeping play to the outside. Browse some games from the early 80s and see how many times players are able to just tee off slapshots... that time and space doesn't exist anymore.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

A lot of long-time fans find today's games often boring. And there was a time when there were several odd-man rushes a period. The term 'end to end action' is synonymous with exciting hockey. It's also something you rarely see anymore.

Nostalgia may be a part of it. But that isn't all of it. Eric Duhatschek knows a bit about hockey. Fair to say he's a fan of the sport. And he was on the radio yesterday criticizing how dull and structured the game is today. His take is that in tight games nobody changes the stifling systems they play, and more goals would make teams have to play more aggressively to come back from behind.

You think the NHL is great as it is - that's fine. But the NHL isn't worried about you. You'll be following the sport regardless. What it has to concern itself with is older fans tuning out, and younger people not becoming fans in the first place. All major professional sports are seeing declines in audiences. The people who run the league cannot take it for granted that the product on the ice is fine and doesn't need to change. If a casual turns on a game on a Wednesday night in January and nothing exciting happens on the ice in a period, he'll go back to watching Game of Thrones or playing Call of Duty, and maybe not even bother switching to the hockey game next time.

Who said the NHL is great as it is? Who wouldn't like more goals and more exciting games?

The point is that if you change hockey so much that it barely resembles hockey for the sake of trying to make it more exciting, you're likely to lose more fans than you gain. Definitely don't want knee jerk reaction decisions that end up ruining the sport and making it unrecognizable. Also, romanticizing the past and trying to return the sport to its glory days is a fools errand. Not only is the past not that amazing but it is impossible.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I do think nostalgia is a big part of it. Another significant part is that, comparatively, the average player in the 80s was horse poop compared to the average player now. I've occasionally looked at old games on youtube and the skating is nowhere near the same, defenders weren't nearly as effective, and the "stifling systems" Eric talks about are more the existence of an actual system rather than the general lack thereof back in the run-and-gun days.

There's no doubt players are far better today. But how does that improve the NHL as an entertainment option if it makes the games less exciting to watch? People don't turn off Netflix and go out to the bar for the evening to marvel at defencemen closing gaps.

The players aren't going to get worse. The coaches aren't going to get worse. So if the NHL wants to game to be more exciting to watch, it's the rules that need to change.

[getbak]

Pierre LeBrun‏ @Real_ESPNLeBrun

Colin Campbell says the GMs decided today not to tweak the offside rule on Coach's Challenge video review (skate in the air). Status quo

I really don't understand the people running this game sometimes. This seems like the easiest "no brainer" type of decision they could have made.

I hope this is a temporary decision and they just didn't want to change a rule partway through a season. I hope they re-visit it during the off-season.