How should the NHL assign points?

Question

I was originally going to make my three questions ONE question, but I realize this is very dependent on how people feel about the shootout and ties.

What do you think....leave things the way they are now (2 for a win, 1 for an overtime or shootout loss, 0 for a regulation loss)?

3 for a regulation win?

No points......Just keep a won-loss record?

Allow ties, but 3 for a win and 1 for a tie?

How about 6 points to be divided like this: regulation win 6-0, overtime win 5-1, shootout win 4-2?

YOU are Bettman for the moment.....what do you do? (I mean as far as this issue, the answer is not "resign", LOL)

Remember that if you feel there should not be ANY rewards for a shootout/OT loss (and no ties), then we can do away with points and just keep a won-loss record like most other sports.

....Unless you want an overtime WIN to be worth less than a regulation win, then you'd still need points

Pavel is right, my head is going to explode and I meant this to be more of a hockey question than a math question

I'd be nice if everyone could say a little about WHY they like it the way it is or would like to see it changed.

...Or in one case, at least answer the question....

Answer 1

First off, if I were Bettman, I'd do the hockey world a favor and crawl under a rock somewhere never to be seen again, but that's not the question.
Personally, I hate the shootout, so my answer may be skewed. I don't see what was wrong with the old system of 2 points for a win, one point for a tie. I don't see the reason to muddle everything up with one point for an overtime loss. I know it's PC that everybody be rewarded for everything, but whether you lose in regulation or overtime, you still lost.
The one-point for OT lose was invented to try and liven up overtimes, but they now go 4v4 anyway, so I don't see the point.
As an aside, I never understood how the rules for overtime of playoff games can differ from those of regular season games. Seems gimicky, but I suppose that brings us back to Bettman.

I could be swayed to award point like soccer, three for a win and one for a tie, but that's about as far as I would go.
But whatever the points, something has to be done to simplify things. I feel like I'm going Algebra every time I look at the standings.

Answer 2

i would take out the stupid shootouts, cause its a team sport.

i would give 3 points for a win, and i would bring back the 10 minutes overtime like it was back in the day, and I would have a 4 on 4 and if it finishes in a tie well one point each cause that 3 points win will make a huge difference in the final standings.


look at football (soccer) there million's of ties and if you only got 2 points for a win teams like Arsenal, Man U. Chelsea would not look that dominate to the last place teams but with this 3 points for a win well these teams look very dominate and clearly separates the best teams from the worst teams.

WINS= 3PTS
LOSES= OPT
TIES= 1PT.


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

Answer 3

They should keep it even...with 82 games there should be 246 points up for grabs: 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an OT/SO win, 1 for an OT/SO loss and 0 for a regulation loss. That way there's ALWAYS 3 points up for grabs in a game, not 2 points for a reg and 3 if it goes to overtime. That is gay.

Answer 4

I like the 3 point idea, actually. Brought it up to a radio talk show host about ten years ago and he laughed me off the air...funny that they are now looking seriously at that.

The three point option gives them something to play for other than overtime or the shootout. It would also reward a team for winning more handily as well.

I would leave the rest the same, for now...2 points for an OT or shootout win...1 point for an OT or shootout loss...zippo for the rest.

Answer 5

Regulation win: 2 points
Regulation loss: 0 points
Overtime win: 1 point
Overtime loss: 0 points
Shootout: Eliminated

Going to overtime hurts both teams, makes for a better playoff race.

I use to think the 3 point system, but what the NHL GM's (those against it) said about it -- they are completely correct. It's would ruin the game.

Answer 6

The answer is also not "shoot myself".

I wouldn't change the point system, just overtime (bring it back to 5 minutes of sudden death followed by a tie; no overtime loss points). If I was forced to change the point system, I would change it to the way they have it for soccer (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a loss).

Answer 7

I say go back to the original point system with one slight change. Good ol' 5 on 5 hockey with "10" Minutes of Sudden Death OT. If no one scores, call it a tie. Less ties and a return to something that resembles the original rules.

The original reason for switching to 4v4 and reworking the point system was to stop teams that would play 5 minutes of boring lifeless defensive hockey to secure a point. I suggest we go back to OT, but extend it to 10 minutes; I think we'd see more action in OT.

Answer 8

It should be proper. 2 points for a win, and no points for ot/shootout loss. A team should not be rewarded for simply "holding on". A loss is a loss.

Answer 9

well if i was bettman i'd go cry in a corner and slit my wrists
but i'll get to the real question. if you stay with the 5 min OT then shootout it should be 3 points for regualtion win and two points for and OT win. if you loose, you loose. whether it be in 60 mins or 65 mins ot more. if you bring back the tie 2 points regualtion win 1 point tie. if you bring back sudden death OT till' someone scores 3 points regualtion win, 2 points OT win. zero points OT loss.

Answer 10

Like the old days
You lose you get what you deserve........0
2 points for a win
1 point for a tie
5 minute OT
Leave the shootouts to the kids tournaments