If a team wins the game either in regulation, overtime or a shootout they get 2 pts, If a team loses they get nothing. Why should a team get a point for losing a game?
2006-12-27 16:48:45 · 19 answers · asked by Funky Monk 2 in Sports ➔ Hockey
Okay maybe 1 pt if it is a shootout loss, but definitly no points for a OT loss.
2006-12-27 17:09:24 · update #1
I agree, they need to go back to the way it was. The only reason why these rules got changed was becuase of the lockout and the owners wanting to artificially boost ratings and fill seats. I'm all for taking out the two line pass but once they start messing witht he way the game is won or lost is too far. I personally can watch a 0-0 hockey game and still be entertained. it's not about goal scoring and and crazy video game moves all the time, there is a sweet science that has been eliminated from the game and I am saddened by it.
2006-12-27 18:10:37 · answer #1 · answered by drecarter04 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are right, but there is even more to it than that. Because some games count for 3 total points (1 for OT loser two for winner) and some count for only 2 points (2 for regular winner), the games that go to overtime are much more important in the standings. This is ridiculous because every game should count the same. I'm glad that the coaches don't do this, but strategically every team should just agree to tie in order to get a point then play it out for the other point. I did some math, and even if you think you can beat a team 3 out of 4 times, therefore averaging 1.5 each time you play them, you would still want to agree to a tie because then you would average 1.75 points each time you play them!! Any system that promotes such a ridiculous and anticompetitive strategy is terribly flawed. I kind of agree with the previous poster. Even though having wins - OT wins - OT losses - losses count for 3-2-1-0 would create some ugly looking records, at least every game would count the same. I think instead they should just play a 10 minute overtime and whoever wins gets all the points and if its a tie then so be it.
2006-12-28 03:13:17 · answer #2 · answered by Answer Man 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd rather see ties than a shootout. The only reason its exciting is because it solves the game.
Look at fighting, you get the same reaction - people standing up out of their seats, cheering/jeering ... and it does not effect the outcome of the game (to an extent). And they want to eliminate that??
At least make shootouts more of a team effort since hockey is a team game... have min. five shooters, not three.
Honestly, in a perfect world, I'd love to see sudden death overtime - even in regular season. But I think its a little different than, for example football - where your next game is in a week or baseball where you don't necessarily play back to back games. And it'll definitely have its tolls come playoff time.
With me hating all the new changes, pre-shootout, I was actually hoping they'd go with the 3-2-1-0 point system (3pts for a regulation win, 2pts overtime win, 1pt for an OT loss).
2006-12-28 01:58:16 · answer #3 · answered by msconduct 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They already get 2 points for a win. Either in regulation, OT or a shootout win. I think that one point for the OT and shootout loss is a fine and should be left as such. The reason the one point for OT loss came to be is so that teams don't play for a tie and go for a win in OT.
2006-12-28 11:29:36 · answer #4 · answered by davester1970 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Some teams DESERVE a point for OT loss. How about NO POINTS for the Shootout loss? Say hey you couldn't get it done in OT then you don't get a point. If you win in OT you get 2 if you loss in OT, and keeping in the rule that you can't get a point if you pull the goalie in OT except on delayed penalty, and add a rule that you can't get a point if you lose in the last 30 seconds or maybe last minute of OT. That keeps the goalie from giving up a soft goal to get his team a point. After all in 30 seconds or a minute there is enough time to get the goal and right set up for getting it.
2006-12-28 10:32:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
they should of never changed nothing in the first place. shootouts should be gone. they should still have ties and no shootout, the way the points system went before was both teams would get a point if still tied after regulation then the winner in overtime would get that extra point and the losing team should get 1 point and after the tie no shootouts and each team gets a point as a tie. if i was the Comish i would take out the shootout and if the team if there still tied after regulation both teams receives a point and the winning team in overtime gets an extra 2 points so the winning team should get 3 points.
JOHN D>>>> Gary Bettman is the one that killed the game nobody else is to blame but him, he is terrible at his job and should be replaced. everybody knows that.
GO HABS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
2006-12-28 01:57:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think what they are doing at the World Junior Tournament looks interesting. 3 points for a regulation time win. 2 points for an overtime win. 1 point for an overtime loss. 0 points for a regulation time loss. Could be interesting BUT I still have to think about it before I make a final decision on whether I like it or not.
2006-12-28 02:13:57 · answer #7 · answered by Jamie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Better yet, why not go right to the shootout after regulation and skip OT. (except for the playoffs obviously)
Winner of shootout would get 2 points and 0 for the loser.
2006-12-28 01:20:57 · answer #8 · answered by redsox451918 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Should be zero points no mater for an OT loss or a shootout loss. A loss is a loss!
2006-12-28 10:10:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exactly, there should be no shootout. Why give a point to a losing team. Doesn't make sense.
2006-12-28 13:46:10 · answer #10 · answered by Deavious999 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋