It makes me sick to see teams get a point even if they lost the dam game i hate it . I What you think?
2006-10-11 07:15:59 · 16 answers · asked by sam (joe thornton) pro 3 in Sports ➔ Hockey
Absolutley.
Its totally illogical to allow some games to contribute 2 points to the standings and some games to contribute 3 points.
It allowed the Edmonton Oilers to sweak into the playoffs, with "cheap" overtime points ahead of the Los Angeles Kings who won more games. Ridiculous.
It ruins historical comparisons of:
team records
coaching records
won/lost percentage
winning, losing, unbeaten and undefeated streaks
It encourages teams to play for a tie in regulation or overtime.
My preference is 5 minutes of OT. Winner gets 2 points, loser gets nothing. If game undecided, 1 point each, no shootout.
It could go on and complain this is yet another symptom of a trend toward a "dumbed down" world, but I will stop here.
2006-10-11 08:14:55 · answer #1 · answered by J Z 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No we shouldn't.
Let me start by stating that JZ's answer was fantastic. Many valid arguments were made, and perhaps it does indeed point towards a more "dumbed-down world" as you so aptly put it.
Here are my arguments for keeping it the way it is now:
1. The game has to end eventually. We all agree with that. If we go back to the old system, teams will simply play NOT to lose, rather than to win. Therefore, games will never end, players will be tired and not focused for the next games, etc. etc.
2. It's boring because of reason #1. We ALL know how boring hockey is when teams play not to lose... Witness the New Jersey "Boring, lame and trappy" Devils of the 90s.
3. It takes AWAY power from the goalie. Remember when Brodeur stole every single game away from other good teams with skill? If a goalie was hot back in the day, 1 goal was all it took to win the game. Teams would sit back and protect the lead. That has changed now. THAT was an individual game, it is less so now.
4. It doesn't help less superiour teams get into the playoffs. The Edmonton Oilers did indeed "sneak" (if you would like) into the playoffs last year - and THEN made it to the Stanley Cup. So they deserved to be there, did they not?
As for LA... They totally sucked the 2nd half of the season. Don't blame the oil for that.
Also, the Oilers were in a WAY tougher division than the Kings. The Northwest division is probably the toughest in hockey.
5. Have you seen the shootouts? Go watch the shootouts and tell me it isn't exciting. Besides, who cares, it ISN'T the playoffs.
*** Having said that, it should NEVER be changed in the playoffs. Sudden-death OT in the playoffs is probably the greatest thing in the world next to sex and coffee.
All and all, I like the new rules (never thought I would say that). It has livened up the game a bit, and forces teams to take a bit of a risk - which is nice.
I think that it rewards the good teams who don't get the bounces, and try to open the game up a bit. Sure, it was created to boost tv ratings, but it does actually help the game in the long run.
Having said all that: GO HABS GO!!
2006-10-11 12:15:58 · answer #2 · answered by bendermarcus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the game actually ended in overtime then I would agree that losers get nothing and winners get it all.
If the win is based on the shootout then I think the other team has certainly earned their 1 point.
2006-10-11 09:59:14 · answer #3 · answered by Ghapy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i don't understand, something is possible. With 20 video games left, communities that even have of undertaking are starting to be further and added risky. Lundqvist did surprising and that i observed little or no faults interior the Rangers protection. Yeah, it is the Panthers, yet you gotta verify you win those sorts of video games to income morale and .. properly factors. this could be a terrific initiate although, it is a terrific advance to initiate a streak.
2016-11-27 21:59:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree....I think the losing team should get exactly what a losing team *should* get. A goose egg, zilch, nada, ZERO. Makes no sense to reward the losing team and in my view defeats the purpose of the concept of overtime and shootout. It would also take the triviality and gmmick factor out of the shootout.
2006-10-11 07:25:31 · answer #5 · answered by beezee05 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think as it seems many others do, that you should get nothing for losing and rewarded for winning.
But it's everywhere in society now. My nieces were at the school track meet last month, they came home with about 10 ribbons each, not one of them higher than 5th place. Why try hard if you can get the same result by just existing. It's what we do now.
2006-10-11 18:05:22 · answer #6 · answered by Khrag 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be a great idea. Face it, a goaltender playing 60 minutes in nets, facing god knows how many shots, doesn't really feel like doing practice drills to determine a Hockey game. It totally kills the game.
2006-10-11 20:57:13 · answer #7 · answered by Deavious999 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree!! There are 2 options to competitive sports. Winning and Losing. Winners get points losers get nothing!! That's the way it should be!!!!! That's exciting!
And to everyone who says it makes the game more exciting, what's exciting about everyone getting points all the time??? There is nothing exciting about that!
2006-10-11 07:37:19 · answer #8 · answered by Bianca 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I assume you mean shootout. It's hard to take a point from a team that tied and determine the winner in a shootout. I think they should keep it the way it is. I do like the shootouts though.
2006-10-11 07:20:59 · answer #9 · answered by Leader Desslok 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i agree 100%. i've been complaining about this for a while. who cares if you tie in regulation - if lost, you lost - doesn't matter at what point in the game the loss comes.
2006-10-11 07:39:50 · answer #10 · answered by jack spicer 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋