In response to red75's comment:
In response to stevegm's comment:
The whole problem with most of these other great suggestions, is they fail to consider the leagues biggest issue, when they originally tried to come up with the concept of a reg season winner.
The monotony and compression of the regular season has teams on a tight schedule. When the whole 4 on 4, shootout system came in...it was only decided upon, because it could be fitted in, in about 1/2 hour usually. On average, teams only have "minutes" per night....not "hours" in which to get the games in.
To me, nothing worse than overtime, and still no winner. I also agree with the league, that at the end of the night...someone should be the winner. It's pretty much impossible to figure out how much time is involved in any kind of overtime result, so we're left with some kind of gimmickry, if a winner is to be crowned. 3 on 3, is a gimmick too, and one I don't think is too well suited to the current Bruins.
Although the single point thing is a reasonable pet peeve, I'm ok with that too. Any of these gimmicks create a competitive challenge, and there's a cause/effect scenario to be considered. 2 pts for an overall win, and zero to the other team, will have serious consequences to the standings, therefore the overall game. A shootout specialist or 2(see TS) would become much more integral to icing a successful team. Same with 3 on 3. If it's 2 pts vs none, it would seem to me, the overall benefit of being built on defense first....would be somewhat compromised. I'm too lazy to figure this out, but I'm projecting around 15 games out of 82, end up tied after 60 minutes. Imagine the difference in points, therefore the shakeup in playoff teams, if the league went 3 on 3, and the winner gets all the points.
Just my opinion, but no thanks. When looking at all the options, I'm not that unhappy with the way it is.
Actually the shake up would have been minimal - seeds 1-8 in the West would have stayed exactly the same. In the East 1-7 would not have changed, but the NYI would have been knocked out of 8th and the Jets would have made it instead. Everything else would have stayed the same. No extra points really wouldn't have made a huge difference.
Like many things Red...the math doesn't work in reverse, because the whole dynamic is changed. We can't look back and make any kind of reasonable assesment regarding which games would have been won or lost, we can only flip a coin.
We can though, look back and see the potential for a much different look to the East conference standings last year(even though a short schedule means fewer tied games after 60 min)
It's all acedemic, but, another o/t win by the B's, and one less by the habs would have changed the seedings big time. Who knows how that would have played out. A little better o/t winning percentage would have definately got NJ in the playoffs, and a better winning percentage o/t could have put the Islanders much further up the standings. A poorer o/t winning percentage could have knocked the Rangers out.
Using the "15 games" theory I floated above, that leaves a potential 30 point shift in points, where we currently have 15. Generally speaking, an o/t win, all of a sudden would become about twice as important. A team that wins 8 out of 15, currently gets 23 points. If there's no points for a tie, that same team only gets 16 points for the same o/t record. It's easy to suggest any team could be impacted 4 points, which leaves a swing of 8 points, and that could have a huge impact. Now...there's basically a safety net(difference of 1 pt). Take that away, and it has to juggle things somewhat, and change the way teams look at things.