The NHL, should they eliminate the extra point in the OT lose? Why should you get a point in losing?

Question

Here's what the NHL would really look like without the extra point in OTL as of Feb 20
(Rank,Name,Pts)
EAST
1.Buffalo 80
2. NewJersey 74
3. TampaBay 68
4. Ottawa 70
5. Pittsburgh 64
6. Montreal 62
5. Altanta 62
7. Carolina 60
8. NYIslanders58
8. Toronto 58
8. NyRangers 58
8. Boston 58
9. Florida 46
9. Washington 46
10. Philelphia 32

WEST
1.Nashville 80
2. San Jose 72
3. Vancouver 70
4. Detroit 76
5. Anaheim 70
5. Dallas 70
6. Minnesota 66
7. Calgary 62
8. colorado 58
9. Edmonton 56
10. St.Louis 52
11. Phoenix 50
12. Columbus 46
13. Chicago 44
14. Los Angeles 40

On top of that Dallas made playoffs last year from OTL (with out the extra point they would have sat in 9th seat) and then got eliminated on the first round.

Okay i'm sorry about my math it does suck i thought i did something wrong with the rankings. But anyways I understand the whole points in ot is not a new thing for it used to be 1 point each on a tie. The DIFFERANCE is that theres a third point given in the OT. So basically you end in a regulation game theres only 2 points awarded regardless. Now you go OT, oh there's three points awarded. Personally i feel the third point skrews up the whole system. But then again i'm just one person. Honestly let's just have a Winner and Loser NHL isn't a pre-school sport. Two pts for the team that wins it in Reg, OT, or Shoot-out period no extra point.

Answer 1

I dunno if you guys read this, but i think thats why the GMs were toying, but ultimately voting down, the idea of 3 points per win 1 point for the OTL.

I like it in the sense that its a bigger gap so teams will actually play the last 2 minutes when they are tied and not go into defensive lockdown just to earn the point, like they do now. I mean its understandable and you can't really blame the teams its smart strategically, but weak if you are watching the game.

I think the shootout is okay long as it stays out of the playoffs. But it strikes me as a little random so if the shootout satys i think the OTL point needs to.

I do like that somebody has to win the game though. Ties are weak, IMO, and anticlimactic.

Answer 2

I find having the OT loss point makes the end of the third slow down a bit. Both teams tend to play defensively so they can guarantee a point by making it to OT. There is no motivation to beat a team in regulation because you get 2 pts for a win whether it's in regulation or OT. With the playoff race being so close in the East a lot of games end up with 3 points being awarded. The NYI can lose in OT and still move up in the rankings which sucks. They are talking about giving 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, and 1 for OT loss. At least that makes the OTL point less valuable.

Answer 3

you always got that extra point in the NHL its not a new rule the only new rule is a shootout which is like a second overtime. but there's always been an extra point given to the losing team in the overtime so its not any different the only thing is, that the teams that win in the shootouts can't depend on that in the playoffs just like the Stars did last year. but the standings would of still been the same as all the previous year but just without the shootout. still a point in overtime loses just as always. they need to take out the stupid shootout, this is a team sport not an individual sport.

what should be done is if they want that point difference they should just give the winning team 3 points and still 1 point in a tie. just like in football (soccer) if they only gave 2 points for a win the top teams like Man U. wouldn't be that far apart from the lower teams cause in football (soccer) there are way more ties then anything and that's why they have the 3 points for the winning team that's makes the big difference in the final standings.

and like i said i don't like the shootout one bit and they should just have a 10 minutes overtime like they did in the 70's 80's but the only thing to change is to make it 4 on 4 not 5 on 5. but not another 20 minutes teams have to be in another city for the following night.


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

Answer 4

I agree with ya some what man. It should go like this:

The game is tied so they go into a whole extra period. 20 minutes of play 4 on 4. The first team to score a goal wins and will receive 2 points. The losing team will recieve none. But if nobody scores in the 4th period of play, nobody gets a point. You'll be suprised how much points each team would drop a season.

Answer 5

I personally am glad there is a winner in every game. I would like for them to play a full twenty minute overtime four on four, as this opens up the game considerably. Before these rule changes, there was an increasing number of ties, as teams would play very conservatively in the overtime to keep from losing the point for a tie.

Answer 6

However you change it, someone is going to get "ripped off" in any given year. Honestly, I think how everyone feels about this is going to be completely biased from year-to-year based on how their favorite team fares. The year your favorite time gets bounced because there ISN'T a point for OT, you'll change your tune. Thus, I think they should leave it as it is. There just isn't a good enough reason to change it. Change for the sake of change is a waste of time. Whatever you do, everyone is not going to be happy.

Your argument about Dallas is not very valid, by the way, because there is no way to know that the other team would not have been bounced in the second round. So it is irrelevant.

Answer 7

MMM. well it looks as if those standings are almost exactly the same as they are in real life, just higher numbers. The reason they give that extra point as soon as the teams enter overtime is because it gives the two teams something to fight for. Before, when a game would go into overtime, they would play conservatively. Because although they may have wanted the win, they didn't want to play to aggressively so they dont walk away with nothing. That guaranteed point assures a competitive atmosphere in overtime.

Answer 8

I personally like the shoot-out... I think its a lot of fun and really exciting, but is it really hockey? no.

I also think you should get 2 points for a win 0 for a loss, you play until someone wins. I think back to the Wisconsin v. Cornell hockey game a few years back that went 6 hours or something like that... now that's some inronman work.

If you're not awarded for a OT loss, more teams are going to put more effort in winning, you snooze you lose. It's that simple.

Answer 9

I like the look of those NHL standings, but I'm not sure whether a team should get a point for losing in ot or not. Some earned it and some didn't. I like the overtime/shootout thing but I say bring back the tie! I miss that medium between a win or a loss. But hey I don't want to complain. I'm so happy to have hockey back period.

Go Habs Go.

Answer 10

Personally I can't stand this set up. Come on giving a point for a loss? I think they should play a 10 minute (full 20 minute period would work too) of four on four hockey and then go to a shoot out. Screw points winners get a win, losers a lose. No more ties. game use Games behind like Baseball and basketball.