End The Points System

[Red7]

No more two points for a win and one point for an OT/SO loss. The 2/1 system made sense when there were ties, but no one else gets a point for playing extra time. The NFL, NBA, and MLB all play overtime/extra innings, and a win is a win and a loss is a loss.

[Hazelwood72]

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.

[MikoTython]

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.

[netboy65]

No more two points for a win and one point for an OT/SO loss. The 2/1 system made sense when there were ties, but no one else gets a point for playing extra time. The NFL, NBA, and MLB all play overtime/extra innings, and a win is a win and a loss is a loss.

It’s not giving a loser point. Teams are tied and they’re splitting the 2 points and they’re giving the winning team a bonus point

[Wattage]

No more two points for a win and one point for an OT/SO loss. The 2/1 system made sense when there were ties, but no one else gets a point for playing extra time. The NFL, NBA, and MLB all play overtime/extra innings, and a win is a win and a loss is a loss.

Actually the nfl does have ties if no one wins in overtime but it doesnt happen often

[MiamiLaw]

And best of all eliminates the skills competition at the end. Shootouts aren’t real hockey.

I personally hate them too but, from what I’ve seen, casual fans love the shootout

[Russdv14]

While shootouts are exciting, they are nothing but a skills competition, eacty as you say. It is not a team sport anymore. I agree with your concept Hazelwood (except for that extra regulation point) because I have felt similarly for quite a while. I might go with a 7 minute 3 on 3 which is very exciting team hockey. But a shootout lasts at least 5 minutes anyway, so I guess 10 min sudden death OT would be fine. **Plus, it would make it even more a team game because the Coach would be forced to use more than just their top 2 lines due to extra time fatigue**. I do not mind 1 point each for a regulation tie, nor 1 point for a 10 min 3 on 3 extra period (still tied). If a team scores in overtime they earn an extra point. 2 pts to 1 like it is now for getting to overtime. I think when you start giving a 3rd point out in a 3,2,1 scenerio you are skewing the numbers. I suspect someone with better mathematic skills can calculate the difference in the standings if one team got 3 points instead of 2, as sometimes it does not make as much difference as we feel.

I vote for the Hazelwood plan minus the 3 points for the regulation win. That would really jack up the numbers I feel inside.

It is a good topic but I hope the league doesn't screw it up

[Inglewood Jack]

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 loie this, except for after the 10 min it is 1 v 1 for 42 minutes with no change. Same palyer

Why.42, cuz it is the answer

[smegma]

How about if there is still a tie after 3 on 3. The refs leave the ice, and we go to 3 on 3 with no rules and who ever gets the puck in the net is the victor. 2 points no tie point allowed. Or just go back to the tie each team gets a point, but there is no way the NHL will get rid of the shootout.

[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.

[blackinkbiz]

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

[MiamiLaw]

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

[Old_Goat]

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?

[MRK]

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.

Shootouts are very exciting but I hate that they decide games. Save it for penalty shots and skill competitions.

[rangergiff]

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.

[roadkillIL]

i am endorsing the Hazelwood plan. 3 pts regulation win, 2 points for overtime win, 1 point OT loss with no shootout. Incentivize the regulation WIN! The 3 points awarded for a regulation win does just that. I do not see it as the "fairest way" to equate an OT win being the same, point wise, as a regulation win. When u beat a team in regulation play, it is deserving of more points, hence the 3. No objections to the OT 2 points for a win. After all, yer team did win the game, eventually. No objection to the OT loss for a point. At least yer team did not lose in regulation play. After OT and the teams are tied, then it goes in the standing as a tie game, 1 point. The shootout??? should go to the dustbin of history. It is too gimmicky to be permitted to affect standing, playoff races, etc. Well, I guess they could have a shootout for the crowd there. As long as no points are awarded or affected by it. Maybe the NHL could have a separate standing for shootout winners and give the winning team with best % of whatever, a bucket of chicken, or a gift certificate to Walmart. U know, something commensurate to the value of a non point gaining shootout. Let the crowd roar! But no no no to points awarded.