NHL Points/Standings System Discussion Thread

[The Cobra]

I think any system that awards a different amount of points in games is fundamentally flawed.

So, I favour the 3-2-1 system.

Rewards teams that win in regulation. I actually like the loser point, as that point needs to go somewhere.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I think any system that awards a different amount of points in games is fundamentally flawed.

So, I favour the 3-2-1 system.

Rewards teams that win in regulation. I actually like the loser point, as that point needs to go somewhere.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

OTOH, I think that any system that awards the same number of points for a skills competition as a 60 minute game is fundamentally flawed, and any system that awards half as many points for a loss as a win is also fundamentally flawed. Even the current system has different amounts of points awarded in games, because a game can be 2 or 3 points. The only value in having the current system is that it sets out the maximum points obtainable as 164 points in a normal season, regardless of how those wins are obtained. In a 3-2-1 system, the only difference is that to obtain the maximum number of points, all wins have to be in regulation rather than in circus time or the skills competition. What's wrong with that?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

OTOH, I think that any system that awards the same number of points for a skills competition as a 60 minute game is fundamentally flawed, and any system that awards half as many points for a loss as a win is also fundamentally flawed. Even the current system has different amounts of points awarded in games, because a game can be 2 or 3 points. The only value in having the current system is that it sets out the maximum points obtainable as 164 points in a normal season, regardless of how those wins are obtained. In a 3-2-1 system, the only difference is that to obtain the maximum number of points, all wins have to be in regulation rather than in circus time or the skills competition. What's wrong with that?

I understand the circus time or skills competition comments. Let me ask you this. Forgetting entirely about points for a second, do you believe there is a fair way to determine a winner and a loser for every regular season game?

IMO 3 on 3 is a fair way to decide a regular season game.

If you don't believe 3 on 3 on whatever other option is "fair", then I think you need to go back to the tie.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Macindoc

OTOH, I think that any system that awards the same number of points for a skills competition as a 60 minute game is fundamentally flawed, and any system that awards half as many points for a loss as a win is also fundamentally flawed. Even the current system has different amounts of points awarded in games, because a game can be 2 or 3 points. The only value in having the current system is that it sets out the maximum points obtainable as 164 points in a normal season, regardless of how those wins are obtained. In a 3-2-1 system, the only difference is that to obtain the maximum number of points, all wins have to be in regulation rather than in circus time or the skills competition. What's wrong with that?

But the 1 point is not a reward for a loss, it's a reward for being tied through 60 minutes of regulation hockey. So it's not completely meritless.

3-2-1-0 system makes the most sense, as it gives teams a sense of urgency to end the game in regulation; winning in regulation is the only way to get the full 3 points.

It also gives bubble teams hope for making a late run and making the playoffs, since they can put together a bunch of regulation wins and get points 3 at a time instead of 2 at a time.
,

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

But the 1 point is not a reward for a loss, it's a reward for being tied through 60 minutes of regulation hockey. So it's not completely meritless.

This.

Honestly unless we are moving to 5V5 OT where the game keeps going until someone scores then a 2-0 point system would be ridiculous.

I don't think it would be fair for a team to be tied after 60 minutes of regulation play, to only then get 0 points out of it because they lost in 3v3 or a shootout.

The only system that makes complete sense for the NHLs current set up is a 3-2-1 system.

3 Points for Regulation win.

Teams each get 1 point for being tied after regulation.

Then the third point is up for grabs in OT/SO.

That system has always made the most sense for the NHL.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

This.

Honestly unless we are moving to 5V5 OT where the game keeps going until someone scores then a 2-0 point system would be ridiculous.

I don't think it would be fair for a team to be tied after 60 minutes of regulation play, to only then get 0 points out of it because they lost in 3v3 or a shootout.

The only system that makes complete sense for the NHLs current set up is a 3-2-1 system.

3 Points for Regulation win.

Teams each get 1 point for being tied after regulation.

Then the third point is up for grabs in OT/SO.

That system has always made the most sense for the NHL.

Which is precisely why we will never see it used.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Which is precisely why we will never see it used.

Tongue in cheek I get it, but I wonder how often games that are tied with 5 minutes remaining in regulation end up not having another goal scored, thus going to OT? I'm excluding cases where a goal was scored, but the trailing team also scored to force OT still.

If the stats shows it happens a fair amount, I think it would be in the NHL's best interest to make the final 5 minutes of the games have more tension and excitement since teams ideally would be pushing for the win, rather than playing it safe as they do right now to get 1 points out of 2.

The NHL got ESPN back, and will be having a second US broadcast partner in their new deal. They will want to do whatever they can to ensure that viewership for these two deals increase, and make the next one even bigger. And all sports leagues need to work on making the younger demographics get engaged with the game since it's them that's generally losing interest. Changes that can add more high excitement moments occur due to incentive should be strongly considered.

Overall though, I'm really done with the NHL's incomplete 3 point system that's currently in place.