End The Points System

[Pierre McGuire]

The 3on3 is just dumb, it’s not hockey. Don’t say you like it…because if you do, you’re lying and not a hockey fan. No other sport does anything like that. The shootout is even dumber, don’t even get me started on that. Just go back to the 2pts for a win, 1pt for a tie and get rid of the loser point. Play an 8 min OT…if it ends in a tie so be it. This circus some of you are dreaming about with different point scoring systems or different OT formats isn’t even needed.

Ties suck

You know what sucks more? Giving a team a point for losing.

Except that they’re not. They’re getting half of the 2 points for being tied after regulation.

You shouldn’t get a point for losing a game at all. That’s where the fail is.

Maybe it’s semantics but you’re getting a point for being tied at the end of regulation, and there’s a bonus (reward) point given for winning the game in OT.

It’s called the “loser point” for a reason.

[netboy65]

The 3on3 is just dumb, it’s not hockey. Don’t say you like it…because if you do, you’re lying and not a hockey fan. No other sport does anything like that. The shootout is even dumber, don’t even get me started on that. Just go back to the 2pts for a win, 1pt for a tie and get rid of the loser point. Play an 8 min OT…if it ends in a tie so be it. This circus some of you are dreaming about with different point scoring systems or different OT formats isn’t even needed.

Ties suck

You know what sucks more? Giving a team a point for losing.

Except that they’re not. They’re getting half of the 2 points for being tied after regulation.

You shouldn’t get a point for losing a game at all. That’s where the fail is.

Maybe it’s semantics but you’re getting a point for being tied at the end of regulation, and there’s a bonus (reward) point given for winning the game in OT.

It’s called the “loser point” for a reason.

Just because some people say that doesn’t make it correct

[aslord]

Why not just give 2 points for a win and zero for a loss. No point for losing in ot/so. Why should there be a reward for getting to ot or so and losing?

[netboy65]

Why not just give 2 points for a win and zero for a loss. No point for losing in ot/so. Why should there be a reward for getting to ot or so and losing?

Back in the day, at the end of regulation in a tie, both teams split the 2 points and went home. When the league instituted ot they tried to incentivize effort by rewarding the first team to score with a bonus point. It’s almost as if they’re two separate events.

[TBone]

Maybe it’s semantics but you’re getting a point for being tied at the end of regulation, and there’s a bonus (reward) point given for winning the game in OT.

That's how I've always viewed it. It's the old fashioned tie with a jump ball for an extra point.

And generally speaking the more skilled team should win a 3 on 3 and in a shootout. LGB!

[MiamiLaw]

Why not just give 2 points for a win and zero for a loss. No point for losing in ot/so. Why should there be a reward for getting to ot or so and losing?

I think the thinking is that by giving the point, they incentivize teams to go for it. If it was all or nothing, teams would play extra cautious.

That may be failing to see the forest for the trees, but that’s the thinking

[TAFKAP]

The 3on3 is just dumb, it’s not hockey. Don’t say you like it…because if you do, you’re lying and not a hockey fan. No other sport does anything like that. The shootout is even dumber, don’t even get me started on that. Just go back to the 2pts for a win, 1pt for a tie and get rid of the loser point. Play an 8 min OT…if it ends in a tie so be it. This circus some of you are dreaming about with different point scoring systems or different OT formats isn’t even needed.

Then the NHL hasn't been "hockey" since the turn of the century. I guess the players aren't real players either because they approved the rule changes through the Competition Committee. I'm cool with the 3 on 3 and I like the shootout. You are in no position to judge what I'm a fan of considering you are ok with losing on purpose. THAT is more criminal than awarding a "Winners Point" for winning a shootout on a random Tuesday night in February.

[netboy65]

The 3on3 is just dumb, it’s not hockey. Don’t say you like it…because if you do, you’re lying and not a hockey fan. No other sport does anything like that. The shootout is even dumber, don’t even get me started on that. Just go back to the 2pts for a win, 1pt for a tie and get rid of the loser point. Play an 8 min OT…if it ends in a tie so be it. This circus some of you are dreaming about with different point scoring systems or different OT formats isn’t even needed.

Actually other sports do. Baseball starts with a runner on 2nd in extra innings. College football each team gets the ball on the 25 yard line going in. Even the NFL allows both teams to possess the ball in OT if a FG is scored.

[Cajanek-Spielmacher]

Who remembers the Blackhawks having 15 + ties or more in the old days? They would play defense the entire 3rd period if they were ahead or tied. Boring as all get out,

[MiamiLaw]

Who remembers the Blackhawks having 15 + ties or more in the old days? They would play defense the entire 3rd period if they were ahead or tied. Boring as all get out,

With Chelios “accidentally” flipping the puck over the boards any time they needed a stoppage

[Cahokanut]

Why not just give 2 points for a win and zero for a loss. No point for losing in ot/so. Why should there be a reward for getting to ot or so and losing?

Back in the day, at the end of regulation in a tie, both teams split the 2 points and went home. When the league instituted ot they tried to incentivize effort by rewarding the first team to score with a bonus point. It’s almost as if they’re two separate events.

Wow. I totally forgotten about splitting the points.
Teams would start playing reserved late in the third. When game was tied. Making for boredom. Enter the extra point.

For me the bestest most logical way to end a tie game, is the same way many goals are scored during the game. A Man Advantage.

Either.
One power play. Home team or coin flip picks who. Goal wins for offense or defense. A penalty kill wins game for the defense.
-OR
Teams could have 2mins man advantage, back and fourth, till one scores and other don't. Maybe a two man advantage after first time around.

Unlike 3v3 or Shootouts. Man advantages have been apart and has been deciding games for many many many many years.

[netboy65]

Who remembers the Blackhawks having 15 + ties or more in the old days? They would play defense the entire 3rd period if they were ahead or tied. Boring as all get out,

With Chelios “accidentally” flipping the puck over the boards any time they needed a stoppage

Demers used to throw pennies on the ice!

[Pierre McGuire]

The 3on3 is just dumb, it’s not hockey. Don’t say you like it…because if you do, you’re lying and not a hockey fan. No other sport does anything like that. The shootout is even dumber, don’t even get me started on that. Just go back to the 2pts for a win, 1pt for a tie and get rid of the loser point. Play an 8 min OT…if it ends in a tie so be it. This circus some of you are dreaming about with different point scoring systems or different OT formats isn’t even needed.

Then the NHL hasn't been "hockey" since the turn of the century. I guess the players aren't real players either because they approved the rule changes through the Competition Committee. I'm cool with the 3 on 3 and I like the shootout. You are in no position to judge what I'm a fan of considering you are ok with losing on purpose. THAT is more criminal than awarding a "Winners Point" for winning a shootout on a random Tuesday night in February.

Losing on purpose? You’ve got me confused with someone else.

[Pierre McGuire]

The 3on3 is just dumb, it’s not hockey. Don’t say you like it…because if you do, you’re lying and not a hockey fan. No other sport does anything like that. The shootout is even dumber, don’t even get me started on that. Just go back to the 2pts for a win, 1pt for a tie and get rid of the loser point. Play an 8 min OT…if it ends in a tie so be it. This circus some of you are dreaming about with different point scoring systems or different OT formats isn’t even needed.

Actually other sports do. Baseball starts with a runner on 2nd in extra innings. College football each team gets the ball on the 25 yard line going in. Even the NFL allows both teams to possess the ball in OT if a FG is scored.

They don’t play 7 on 7 in football so they? They don’t go to 5 players in the field in baseball do they? No sport is putting less players on the field of play in OT.

[TAFKAP]

The 3on3 is just dumb, it’s not hockey. Don’t say you like it…because if you do, you’re lying and not a hockey fan. No other sport does anything like that. The shootout is even dumber, don’t even get me started on that. Just go back to the 2pts for a win, 1pt for a tie and get rid of the loser point. Play an 8 min OT…if it ends in a tie so be it. This circus some of you are dreaming about with different point scoring systems or different OT formats isn’t even needed.

Then the NHL hasn't been "hockey" since the turn of the century. I guess the players aren't real players either because they approved the rule changes through the Competition Committee. I'm cool with the 3 on 3 and I like the shootout. You are in no position to judge what I'm a fan of considering you are ok with losing on purpose. THAT is more criminal than awarding a "Winners Point" for winning a shootout on a random Tuesday night in February.

Losing on purpose? You’ve got me confused with someone else.

I have enough respect for your knowledge that I know you're not a troll. Are you not on the record that the Blues didn't go far enough in tearing the team down? That they should have gone further? Tanking, to me, is losing on purpose. Trading pending UFA's when you don't plan on extending them is smart. Trading players on good NHL contracts, for picks, when there is nobody coming up to take their place (IE Schenn, Parayko, and Binnington) is losing on purpose and it sucks. If they had traded Schenn to the Leafs for Knies (Highly unlikely) or a package of young talent because he wanted to go I'd understand. I don't support tank jobs. It's (bleep). It cheats the fans and the players left.

[Pierre McGuire]

The 3on3 is just dumb, it’s not hockey. Don’t say you like it…because if you do, you’re lying and not a hockey fan. No other sport does anything like that. The shootout is even dumber, don’t even get me started on that. Just go back to the 2pts for a win, 1pt for a tie and get rid of the loser point. Play an 8 min OT…if it ends in a tie so be it. This circus some of you are dreaming about with different point scoring systems or different OT formats isn’t even needed.

Then the NHL hasn't been "hockey" since the turn of the century. I guess the players aren't real players either because they approved the rule changes through the Competition Committee. I'm cool with the 3 on 3 and I like the shootout. You are in no position to judge what I'm a fan of considering you are ok with losing on purpose. THAT is more criminal than awarding a "Winners Point" for winning a shootout on a random Tuesday night in February.

Losing on purpose? You’ve got me confused with someone else.

I have enough respect for your knowledge that I know you're not a troll. Are you not on the record that the Blues didn't go far enough in tearing the team down? That they should have gone further? Tanking, to me, is losing on purpose. Trading pending UFA's when you don't plan on extending them is smart. Trading players on good NHL contracts, for picks, when there is nobody coming up to take their place (IE Schenn, Parayko, and Binnington) is losing on purpose and it sucks. If they had traded Schenn to the Leafs for Knies (Highly unlikely) or a package of young talent because he wanted to go I'd understand. I don't support tank jobs. It's (bleep). It cheats the fans and the players left.

I don’t see moving players out as losing on purpose. You can still win by moving players for picks. We are better than we have been all year and and we are doing it without who many would say is our best player. Would I have moved a few guys for picks and prospects…definitely. Would I have replaced those guys with guys such as Dvorsky and Snuggerud….without question.