MikoTython wrote: ↑28 Mar 2025 22:38 pm
I like the points system. One tweak - after the 4 x 4, do a 3 x 3 - probably cut down the number of SOLs & Ws, which no one really likes, since it isn't, as said, real hockey.
What I don't like is giving the 2nd place division winner an auto matchup w/ the 2d WC. It should be simply, by normal points and tie-breakers - 1 v 8 & 2 v 7 (as of old). As it is, divisions get a guaranteed 3 spots in the play-offs. Teams in weaker divisions already have more games against weaker opponents. No need for other perks.
3-2-1 points yes...And maybe sudden death 4 x 4 for 5 minutes followed by sudden death 3 x 3 for 5 minutes, and no shootout?
Yeah. I don't like the 3 points, though. They're sweating for the 2nd point, like always. Changing that has the main downside of distorting historical comparisons, also don't like penalizing games won in o/t vs reg. That devalues defense. And if 3 x 3 doesn't resolve it, leave it a tie.
What we're seeing is everyone has a different opinion. 3 x 3 is more hockey than a shootout, I'll say that.
Pierre McGuire wrote: ↑29 Mar 2025 08:21 am
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.
Hazelwood72 wrote: ↑28 Mar 2025 21:28 pm
I’d rather see this system:
3 pts for regulation win
2 pts for OT win
1 pt for OT loss
3-on-3 OT for 10 minutes
No shootout
1 pt each team for tie
My approach rewards a team for getting it done in regulation and gives a weaker team some credit for hanging in there past regulation. It also won’t take longer than 5 min OT plus shootout.
And best of all eliminates the skills competition at the end. Shootouts aren’t real hockey.
I'm with you on this one. Soccer has this figured out, why can't hockey, a superior sport?
I have also never had a problem with ties. Some of the best regular season games I ever saw resulted in ties. But I have come to appreciate the excitement of OT, and it's lost most (not all) of the gimmick feel. Not the shootout, however. It still seems like a gimmicky crapshoot. I'd rather see the tie.
MRK wrote: ↑29 Mar 2025 09:27 am
How about 4x4 for 5 minutes, 3x3 for 5 minutes, 2x2 for 5 minutes, if no score after all that then it remains a tie with 1 pt each team
Pierre McGuire wrote: ↑29 Mar 2025 08:21 am
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.
I agree with that, but only as part of the larger issue. Is giving a team a point for being on the wrong end of a shootout worse than giving a team two points for being on the right end of one? The shootout is a gimmick. They just need to bring back ties.
There should be value added to winning a game in regulation. Think of the last 5 minutes of a tie game. Teams tighten up & take fewer offensive chances so they dont miss out on that precious point for a "tie". As ole Herm Edwards once said, "You play to win the game". Imagine the thoughts going thru the coaches and players minds the last few minutes of a tie game with that extra point up for grabs if they can WIN in regulation. I believe THAT would be good for the game and promote a decision, win or loss, in regulation play.
I can see MTs point on distorting historical records (with the 3 point regulation win). I would counter that has been distorted already by the granting of an extra point for an OT win.
And its not about penalizing OT wins, its about promoting regulation wins. That might emphasize offensive play throughout the game, or at least playing to win as regulation play winds down.
Even the NHL powers that be know that 3 on 3 isn’t hockey and that it’s a gimmick. If it wasn’t they would use it for the playoffs as well. You mean to tell me that they can’t just do a 10 minute OT in thre regular season when playoff games often go to Double OT. They never had to make any changes. There was nothing wrong with a tie game.
Pierre McGuire wrote: ↑29 Mar 2025 08:21 am
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.
Pierre McGuire wrote: ↑29 Mar 2025 08:21 am
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.
Hahah! Played hockey the majority of my life and I love the 3 on 3. Wouldn't mind a few tweaks to it to prevent teams from endlessly cycling back out of the zone for a redo, though.
As far as the points system, OP has it right.
3 for a regulation win
2 for an OT/SO win
1 for an OT/SO loss
Listened to a podcast recently where this scoring system was discussed. According to them it didn't change the standings. I would still go to this system. I also agree that teams need to be kept from cycling the puck in and out of the zone. Give them 20 seconds to enter their zone. Once in, if they take it out it's a turnover and the other team gets it. If the other team chips it out, the puck is up for grabs. I don't mind the shootouts but there are too many. I think more teams will win in the 3 on 3 with that small change.
See I think the whole "it wouldn't change the standings" argument is pointless right now as the main focus of teams since it is only 2 points is just make sure you get one, and then hope for the 2nd. There's no major incentive, other than getting the two points and not playing additional hockey, to doing everything you can to win in regulation.
Have a team behind 9 points behind in the standings and say 10 games left. The team they are chasing gets into 3 ties and wins in OT. If the team behind wins 3 games in regulation, they are still gaining traction on the team ahead of them instead of staying parallel. That makes a huge difference, and major incentive to push to win in regulation. Now instead of staying 9 points back, they are now 6 points back and are putting pressure on the team ahead to start winning in regulation. It would have a much larger psychological effect than I think a lot of people realize.
Pierre McGuire wrote: ↑29 Mar 2025 10:21 am
Even the NHL powers that be know that 3 on 3 isn’t hockey and that it’s a gimmick. If it wasn’t they would use it for the playoffs as well. You mean to tell me that they can’t just do a 10 minute OT in thre regular season when playoff games often go to Double OT. They never had to make any changes. There was nothing wrong with a tie game.
They interviewed MacKinnon after the 10 minute OT during the 4 nations and he stated he couldn't stand and didn't want it implemented. Said he was exhausted.
Now part of that was that Cooper was running him, Makar, and McDavid out there for a minute to a minute and half, 30 seconds on the bench and back out there so he never really had a change to catch his breath.
MikoTython wrote: ↑28 Mar 2025 22:38 pm
I like the points system. One tweak - after the 4 x 4, do a 3 x 3 - probably cut down the number of SOLs & Ws, which no one really likes, since it isn't, as said, real hockey.
What I don't like is giving the 2nd place division winner an auto matchup w/ the 2d WC. It should be simply, by normal points and tie-breakers - 1 v 8 & 2 v 7 (as of old). As it is, divisions get a guaranteed 3 spots in the play-offs. Teams in weaker divisions already have more games against weaker opponents. No need for other perks.
3-2-1 points yes...And maybe sudden death 4 x 4 for 5 minutes followed by sudden death 3 x 3 for 5 minutes, and no shootout?
Yeah. I don't like the 3 points, though. They're sweating for the 2nd point, like always. Changing that has the main downside of distorting historical comparisons, also don't like penalizing games won in o/t vs reg. That devalues defense. And if 3 x 3 doesn't resolve it, leave it a tie.
What we're seeing is everyone has a different opinion. 3 x 3 is more hockey than a shootout, I'll say that.
Okay...Got bored at work... Ran the numbers using the 3-2-1 point system. Not much difference in the standings except for that it doesn't allow the Blues to get as close to the Wild...
Team Reg Wins OT Wins SO W or L Overall
Winnipeg 39 (117) 10 (20) 2 139
Dallas 38 (114) 7 (14) 4 132
Colorado 38 (114) 5 (10) 4 128
Minnesota 33 (99) 5 (10) 5 114
St Louis 29 (87) 6 (12) 5 104
Team Reg Wins OT Wins SO W or L Overall
Las Vegas 41 (123) 2 (4) 4 131
Los Angeles 35 (105) 4 (8) 4 118
Edmonton 30 (90) 11 (22) 1 113
Vancouver 26 (78) 5 (10) 5 93
Calgary 26 (78) 5 (10) 5 93
Using the simple 2-1 system. Again not much change...
Team Reg Wins OT Wins SO W or L Overall
Winnipeg 39 (78) 10 (20) 2 100
Dallas 38 (76) 7 (14) 4 94
Colorado 38 (76) 5 (10) 4 90
Minnesota 33 (66) 5 (10) 5 81
St Louis 29 (58) 6 (12) 5 75
Team Reg Wins OT Wins SO W or L Overall
Las Vegas 41 (82) 2 (4) 4 90
Los Angeles 35 (70) 4 (8) 4 82
Edmonton 30 (60) 11 (22) 1 83
Vancouver 26 (52) 5 (10) 5 67
Calgary 26 (52) 5 (10) 5 67
Granted this does not take into account how teams might play differently for the extra point in regulation...
Ties do suck, but points for losing sucks more IMO. I tend to be more on Tim's purist side on this one. There are a couple things having the extra point does. In the back half of the regular season and especially now down the stretch, teams would love regulation wins but they settle for first getting the point too often. You can see it when two teams sort of cruise in at the end of the third just trying to secure the point first. That is less compelling hockey to me just in terms of the competitiveness you get when you make it zero sum. And if you're in a playoff race watching a cross-conference game it's too common in the final 5 minutes that the two teams tacitly agree to chase the last point in skills, already knowing the worst (regulation loss) isn't the outcome. Zero sum points system leads to more roughhousing on the ice.
Leaving an arena after a tie game is a fan feeling they seemingly wanted to do away with, it doesn't engage the emotional fluctuations of the brain that go part and parcel with clicky things and algorithms designed to promote conflict. And the way fans feel leaving a game is super important to the NHL. They want every fan to feel like their team is in the race as long as possible. I understand why they did it. But if they truly believed in it, they would keep their current 3x3 + shootout but award 0 points for a loss. They just don't have the conviction to do that. And they shouldn't, it would be terrible. Soccer ending its championship on penalty kicks literally negates the sport for me, that is worthless competition IMO.
Complicating it all is that a true cornerstone of loving NHL hockey is the perfection of sudden death (we have to call it 'sudden victory' now? won't someone think of the children hearing the word death?) Stanley Cup overtime. 5x5 until it ends in the playoffs is the single best thing in all of sports. As long as they keep that I can live with whatever they do in the regular season to keep fans paying to attend.
Pierre McGuire wrote: ↑29 Mar 2025 08:21 am
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.
Pierre McGuire wrote: ↑29 Mar 2025 08:21 am
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.
