Who thinks the NHL should get rid of the rediculous rule where you get a point just for getting into overtime.

Question

With the way things are the Pacific Division standings look like this,
Pacific W L O* Pts
Anaheim 33 15 8 74
San Jose 35 19 1 71
Dallas 34 20 2 70
Phoenix 25 29 2 52
Los Angeles 19 30 9 47

However, if you only got points if you won, san jose would be first and dallas would be second and aneheim would be third.

Its so stupid to think that the team with the most wins would not be in first in the standings. What do you think?

Answer 1

I agree! They built the rules on a house of cards.

First they made a point for making OT and 4 on 4 to encourage them to have an exciting end not in a tie.

THEN they put in the shoot out so no game ends in a tie. That's what the point was for? Well that is back to the end of a tie in the third period is very, very boring as everyone wants that point.

And the shootout - oh it is so exciting. Except you sit through a boring 3 hours waiting for 3 minutes of excitement.

They have made rule change after rule change and they should have left it the way it was.

Answer 2

I'm not a fan of it but the reason the NHL adopted this rule is that teams are now more willing to go for the extra point in OT if they now worst case scenario they still get 1pt. OT during the regular season most of the time was 5 minutes of keep it in the neutral zone because at the very least we get a point and don't lose ground to the team we are playing. If you gave up a goal you didn't get a point the other team got 2 and you just lost possibly big ground in the standings. The new system works so that if you go for the win you get 1 extra point but if you go for the win and give up a turnover that costs you its not a total kick in the stomach. You also need to look at the standings and see how many of the wins are by SO. Dallas had an inflated record last year going into the playoffs because of all the SO wins and it cost them big 3 OT losses in the 1st round.

Answer 3

You youngsters obviously know nothing about what the NHL used to be like. I can remember teams that finished an 80 game season with twenty ties. Tie games suck. When the 5 minute overtime was first introduced, the league wisely decided to give the losing team one point, or there would be little incentive to try to win the game. Teams would be playing to not lose that one point instead of getting one extra, and what's the point of playing more tie hockey?

Even after going to four-on-four overtime, there were still too many ties. Now there are no ties, and it's great. I was a season ticket holder for ten years and I hated tie games. The shootout wasn't around then and I wish it had been. I saw only a handful of penalty shots in that ten year span. Now you get to see them a lot more often. I love it. Just not come playoff time.

Answer 4

they should of never introduce the shootout, i don't like it and i know many other fans don't like it, but there are some that do like it but what you need to realize is that hockey is a team sport not an individual sport so they should scrap the shootout. in the regular season it should be 1 points each if going into overtime and it should be a 4 on 4 10 minutes overtime like it was back in the day well it was 5 on 5 but make it 4 on 4 with a 10 minutes overtime and if it stays tied each 1 point and the winner receives 2 points they should of never change the points system.

and they should just go ahead and give the winning team 3 points if they want to separate the best teams from the worst teams that's the only way it will make a difference. CAUSE YOU LOOK AT FOOTBALL (SOCCER) THERE ARE ALLOT OF TIES AND EACH TEAM RECEIVES 1 POINT, BUT IF THAT TEAM WINS RECEIVES 3 POINTS AND AT THE END OF THE SEASON YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE OF THE BEST TEAMS AND THE WORST TEAMS. CAUSE IF THE WINNING TEAM ONLY RECEIVED THAT 2 POINTS IT WOULDN'T SHOW AS MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE OF THE FINAL STANDINGS.


GO HABS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Answer 5

As it stands, NHL scoring is the same as in Soccer (replacing T's with OTL's). If you only got points if you won:

1). Teams would be seperated in points by multiples of 2.
2). If you only get points by winning, then why not change the rule to 1 point per win. The deficit between teams would be exactly the same, but just counted differently.
3). If you get 1 point for every 1 W, why not get rid of the point scheme and just count the W's and measure each team's deficit by how many games behind they are to the division leader.

Note: Every other american professional league does this already.

I could go either way with the point scheme. It just seems that with OT points, losing doesn't seem so rough to hockey players than to basketball players.

Answer 6

The guaranteed point was instituted to stimulate more aggressive play in OT. Until the rule was implemented, teams would often play for a tie for the last 25 minutes (3rd period/OT).

The natural evolution would be to go to a 3 pt/win system next. The OTL point makes it really difficult for teams to make up ground in the playoff chase. If teams can't put opponents away in regulation, they can't easily close ground or open the gap against that team. In the last week of play you might even see teams pulling their keeper in a tie game because 1 pt won't get them in.

Answer 7

I think a good idea would be to make all games worth three points. Winning in regulation nets 3 points, winning in OT/SO would get 2 points. A regulation loss stands as it is, while losing after regulation would earn 1 point. It would separate teams in points a lot more and create new strategies for trying to come back and not go down by 3 more points.

Answer 8

I have no problem with giving a team who loses in overtime or a shootout one point. What I would prefer to see, however, is reward the team who wins in regulation with three points. That way every game will be worth three points: 3 and 0 if the game is decided in regulation, or 2 and 1 if it is decided in OT or a shootout. To give the same point value to a team who wins a shootout as is given to a team who dominates a game and wins 6-1 is my pet peeve with the NHL system.

Answer 9

I agree with you. I think the NHL wanted to liven up the game for new fans by including a shoot out. Some people also don't like ties. I am more of a purist and wish they would go back to the old way.

Answer 10

I think it's ok, if 2 teams hold each other to no goals, or score back and forth and earn their ways into a tie, they deserve atleast 1 point for working so hard, and never giving up.