Do you think they should change NHL rules to eliminate points given for overtime losses?

Question

In my opinion a loss is a loss and only points should be given to the winner of the game. What do you think?

Answer 1

I think NHL is hockey tournament,isn't it ?

Answer 2

Yes. I think that the team that loses should receive no points..... since we now have shootouts, there is obviously going to be a winner and a loser of every regulation game. Why not get rid of the "point system" all together and base team standings on wins and losses? I hate to see a team in first place, because they have more overtime or shootout losses than the second place team. For example: Anaheim Ducks (currently 1st place) have a record of 35 wins 17 losses and 10 overtime losses. San Jose Sharks(currently 2nd place, same division) have a record of 38 wins 22 losses and 1 overtime loss. In addition, Dallas Stars (currently 3rd place, same division) have record of 36 wins 21 losses and 3 overtime losses. If you counted only wins and losses, San Jose would be in 1st place with 38 wins and 23 losses, Dallas would be in 2nd place with 36 wins and 24 losses, and Anaheim would be in 3rd place with 35 wins and 27 losses. Just because you have more overtime losses does not make you a better team. Wins are what decides the best teams. I think that people want to see the best teams in the playoffs, not the ones that have the most overtime losses.

Answer 3

I agree with you. Since when should the loser be rewarded? And since they don't let any game end in a tie now the teams would fight harder for those 2 points if they knew that's all there was to get. The way it is now, if the game is tied some teams just go on the defensive and try to keep the game tied and not worry about trying to win because they know if they tie they get a point, if they lose they get nothing so try to keep the tie and they are assured of at least one point and if they go on to win they get more points. That's not good or fun to watch hockey.

Answer 4

Absolutely. The way I see it, giving the losing team a point only gives the winning team 1 point more. Stupid. A loss is a loss. You don't pick up a half a game in baseball for winning a game in extra innings.

Answer 5

I say just have a simple win-loss record and that's it. If you win in regulation, overtime, or a shootout, you get a win. If you lose in regulation, overtime, or a shootout, you get a loss. Forget the points system. That would simplify the standings for the fans still getting used to having hockey around

Answer 6

YES. Get rid of it! It's their house of cards rules system as they muddle through. They first gave an overtime loss point to encourage teams to be more offensive knowing they couldn't lose a point. But that was to be more offensive than just ending in a tie. THEN they eliminated ties all together with the shoot out. So you are back to teams that would rather play OT defensively and take their chances on the shoot out. Games can't end in a tie - the point doesn't encourage anything, get rid of it.

Answer 7

Yes and that should've been addressed at the last meeting! You play a full game to try to win, and just because you reach a tie at the end, both teams get a point? wtf? So if you had a crucial game against a division leader, and you fought hard to win at their arena, and it ends up in a tie....the division leader is satisfied because they have a point. That point, puts them 1 point ahead of everyone else below them already. But you work extra harder for that 1 point only so you can gain a point? Basically you are undervaluing a WIN and making a TIE an overvalue. If you win, regardless if its in OT, you deserve the 2 and the opponent deserves 0. They didn't win, you did. Get it right Bettman!

Answer 8

I don't think the NHL should change this rule. Both teams fight to the finish and if the tie and go into OT than they should both receive points, especially if it ends in a shootout. A shootout is primary luck on the shooters part or the goalies depending on how it goes. But when it ends in allotted OT time before a shootout can take place than yes both teams should be allowed to get points because this is when teams come together and show what they're made of, true skill comes out.

Answer 9

I dont think they should change this rule at all. They award the point to the losing team in a tie because they have played a full hockey game without a decision, clearly worth at least half of the points that you would earn for a win. I also believe this creates a chance for much better games in the NHL, closer races for playoff spots, more intense play in games. I mean when a team is down by 2 goals at the end of the 3rd period, I like to see them play a little harder knowing that those two goals will get them at least one point. All in all i think this rule benefits the NHL.

Answer 10

No, keep it the way it is for regular season games. Prior to the four on four and the shootout if needed, regular season overtimes were dull. Usually the road team, and sometimes both teams would play tight and be happy with 1 point for the tie.

Answer 11

No I do not. If they did that, then the teams involved, unless needing the extra point to get into the playoffs, would play conservatively to preserve the 1 point for the tie. That is why the NHL is trying new ways to decide an overtime win/loss. They have made good strides forward. Now let's not hope for them to take two steps back.