3 pts for a win? Why not?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from socca10. Show socca10's posts

    3 pts for a win? Why not?

    I've often wondered why the NHL has 2-pt wins, but creates a point for OT games. I posted this on the crappy BDC re-print of last night's game article via the AP:

     

    I've long been a proponent of the 3-point win; I think it's ludicrous to make an extra point appear "out of thin air" just because a team wins a shootout. I also think awarding a team the same amount of points for a shootout win as for a regulation win doesn't encourage a team to play for the win in 60 minutes.

     

    I'd definitely like to see a 3-2-1 system: 3 points are up for grabs in a game; you get all 3 if you win in regulation; teams get one each for making it to OT (nothing wrong with awarding an even effort) and they play for the "extra"/third point in OT and the shootout.

     

    The whole point of a competition is to win in the time allotted.

     

    Thoughts? It seems like this would encourage teams to play for the win instead of being content with a point. Imagine if your team were out of 8th place by 2 points on the last game of the season...wouldn't that generate more excitement than "play for the win, hope for a SO point?"

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    There was nothing wrong with the 2 points per game system win, lose or draw, until Bettman came along.

    There is almost no way they will change the present system because it artificially enhances parity and keeps too many teams in playoff contention longer than they should be. This system also deludes teams and GM's into thinking their teams and some of their players are better than they actually are, preventing real change of personnel for the betterment of the team.

    However, I agree that they should bring in the 3 points for a regulation win. At least this incentive will bring out the best of the better teams.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    They've been trying to help teams play for the win for as long as I've been following hockey.

    I say scrap all of the BS and go back to the original idea:  W - 2, T - 1, L - 0

    That's it.  They need to stop trying to be creative. and just leave the game the way it was for 70 freakin' years.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    2 points for a win, nothing for a loss.

    I can see why they put in the shootout, but I'd rather a game decided by the game.. To have a team enter the playoffs like the Flyers did a few years back because thye won a shootout is too gimmicky.

    If you refuse to have playoff games decided by it, it makes no sense to decide who is in the playoffs by it.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mxt. Show mxt's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    They've been trying to help teams play for the win for as long as I've been following hockey.

    I say scrap all of the BS and go back to the original idea:  W - 2, T - 1, L - 0

    That's it.  They need to stop trying to be creative. and just leave the game the way it was for 70 freakin' years.

    [/QUOTE]

    This

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    I'd be fine with 2 for a win, 1 for a tie, but the "no, there must be a winner; sister-kissers are unacceptable!" argument has too much traction to ever go back.  I still like the compromise of keeping track of shootout wins separately as a tiebreaker or something, but with no direct impact on the points in the standings.  So if you go to a shootout, both teams get a point, and one team wins something else called a shootout challenge - a skills competition - so that if there's a tie at the end of the season, the team with the better shootout winning percentage is the higher seed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'd be fine with 2 for a win, 1 for a tie, but the "no, there must be a winner; sister-kissers are unacceptable!" argument has too much traction to ever go back.  I still like the compromise of keeping track of shootout wins separately as a tiebreaker or something, but with no direct impact on the points in the standings.  So if you go to a shootout, both teams get a point, and one team wins something else called a shootout challenge - a skills competition - so that if there's a tie at the end of the season, the team with the better shootout winning percentage is the higher seed.

    [/QUOTE]


    Book,

    This is the best idea I've read on how to solve the stupidity.

    Get this in front of the league offices...somehow!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:

    There is almost no way they will change the present system because it artificially enhances parity and keeps too many teams in playoff contention longer than they should be


    This is the biggest reason in my view,if teams are still within striking distance fans will still go to the games.It also means teams that are good at skills competitions get into the playoffs over teams that aren't.The Lerfs for example have won lots of shootout games & Detroit has been involved in a lot.If it was back to the old system,which i preferred,the wings & Lerfs would be on the outside looking in.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    No more ties they are just plain dumb. Give the OT a few more minutes last few minutes, 3 on 3. Car salesman Bud Selig likes ties, hockey is not baseball.  Winner of OT is the winner take all on the two points.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No more ties they are just plain dumb. Give the OT a few more minutes last few minutes, 3 on 3. Car salesman Bud Selig likes ties, hockey is not baseball.  Winner of OT is the winner take all on the two points.

    [/QUOTE]

    How long is a few more minutes? It still could be tied after 10 extra minutes,what then?Back to the shootout?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?


    Wow Book, that's one of the smartest, and easiest, resolutions I've ever seen for this mess. Fantastic idea.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No more ties they are just plain dumb. Give the OT a few more minutes last few minutes, 3 on 3. Car salesman Bud Selig likes ties, hockey is not baseball.  Winner of OT is the winner take all on the two points.

    [/QUOTE]

    How long is a few more minutes? It still could be tied after 10 extra minutes,what then?Back to the shootout?

    [/QUOTE]


    Back up goalie fight at center ice.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    Create more regulation wins, create more offense, keep the OT and the shootout.  Two points if you win, 0 if you lose.  Enough of the faux parity.  

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    I've changed my mind.  I now fully endorse back-up goalie fight at centre ice.  Marquis of Queensberry rules, meaning rounds end with a knockdown and the fight continues until one or the other doesn't get up.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from biggskye. Show biggskye's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I've changed my mind.  I now fully endorse back-up goalie fight at centre ice.  Marquis of Queensberry rules, meaning rounds end with a knockdown and the fight continues until one or the other doesn't get up.

    [/QUOTE]

       I liked your first idea, better. Philly would love the back-up goalie fight idea. So would Ray Emery.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    4-on-4 for 10 minute in OT---  If both teams are still tied, award 1 pt each.  Get rid of the shootout.  2 points for a win and 0 for a loss.  

    If they still want to stick with the crappy skills competition shootout and one pansy-azz bonus point for an OT loss, then I am ok with 3 points for a regulation win

    Big "NO" to 3-on-3...too gimmicky (Plus, if there is a penalty, then you have to add a player = stupid)...  might as well just have the shootout. 

    I love how Julian uses 3 forwards and 1  D-man in OT.  I think more teams are going to adopt this seeing how successful the Bruins have been with it.  

    NHL won't do make changes because the bonus point allows more crappy teams to be in the playoff hunt = more revenue.   Plus, the shootout appeals to the casual fan (and not many of us that frequent this board)

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from KMCI. Show KMCI's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    JUST NOT!

     

    GOAT!!!

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from bobruins. Show bobruins's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    3 points for a win, regulation or OT (why should a a hockey game loser get a point ?, makes no sence to me).....
    If at end of OT there is still no winner, give 1 point to each team(its like a tie game) and then go to the gimick shootout for the third point.....this way you have a balanced point system and Betman keeps his gimick shootout contest.......

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    "Fawking" Nite Vs. "Ship Jumper" SoxFan

    Kelv is the referee

    Calls it a draw

    Back to square one

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Fawking" Nite Vs. "Ship Jumper" SoxFan

    Kelv is the referee

    Calls it a draw

    Back to square one

    [/QUOTE]

    Lol

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "Fawking" Nite Vs. "Ship Jumper" SoxFan

    Kelv is the referee

    Calls it a draw

    Back to square one

    [/QUOTE]

    If it's those two, it's whichever one of those old turds wakes up from the mid round nap first.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    So the problems for me are twofold:

    a) keep incentivizing teams to play aggressively in the waning minutes of a game in a silly attempt to save the "loser point"

    b) stop rewarding mediocrity with a whole bunch of loser points

    In both cases, the only issue for me is the fact the loser point exists at all.

    So I agree: just go with 10 minutes of 4-on-4 but there's no extra point for trying. Winner gets 2, loser gets 0. You get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir.

    If they tie after 10 mins of 4-on-4, both teams get 1 point. Like the good ol' days. Awarding of points is over.

    What they do beyond that really doesn't matter to me. The SO is fun and provides some warm fuzzy closure. Book's idea is fine...make the shootout a tiebreaker, or drop confetti from the ceiling, or fans get free Tim Bits the next morning if the home team wins the SO or whatever. As long as regulation WINS then OT WINS are the #1 and #2 tiebreakers for playoff seeding, what they do from there is splitting hairs.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    Status quo. I'm fine with the present system.

    Competition in sports is played to decide who comes up a winner.

    The "Let's tie one for the gipper" mentality doesn't work for me.

    I hated ties.





     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    I was thinking about this last night. I dont like the team that did not win getting a point and the NHL seems deadset on having someone win.

    10 minutes of 4 on 4. If no winner, each team gets a power play. Home team decides who goes first. If the team that goes first scores, second team gets a chance to match it. Short handed goal ends it no matter what.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: 3 pts for a win? Why not?

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    Status quo. I'm fine with the present system.

    Competition in sports is played to decide who comes up a winner.

    The "Let's tie one for the gipper" mentality doesn't work for me.

    I hated ties.




    Everytime somone mentions "tie" or says it, I see that stupid look on Bud Selig's face.

     

Share