Currently in the NHL, two points are given to a team that wins, whether outright, through overtime or by shootout. As it stands right now, there is no incentive to hurry a win and, in some cases, going for one point and an overtime/shootout loss doesn't seem so bad.
I propose a system which gives teams real incentive to win as early as possible.
Award four points for an outright win. This will encourage teams to go all out even in the dying minutes of a game. If the game is not settled after sixty minutes both teams will get one point. If one team wins in overtime, it shall be awarded two extra points for three points overall. If it wins after the shootout, it will only be awarded one extra for two points. I believe this will make for more cutthroat last minute goals since winning as early as possible will reward a team more. I offer my suggestion and encourage any critiques of it.
2007-03-24 10:30:30 · 12 answers · asked by paulblackman 2 in Sports ➔ Hockey
This is my suggestions:
One point for win (for outright, OT and SO) , -1 point for loss (outright) and -0.5 points for OT and SO losses. I think this will work in order to determine the best team in the league. In the current pointage system, the best team maynot be a the team with the most victries. In my system, anyteam with a + pointage would be easily differentiated as a good team. (since they got more wins than losses.) Cut the whole bull about giving a point to OT, as you said, teams are slowing down during the last few minutes to getthe insurance points, and eeryone's on the defensive. That makes it boring. My pointage system will ensure that everyone will fight to the last point since no one wants to have (-) pointages. Also, if I were the commisioner, I would take off the division leaders in the standings. It just isnt fair if a team is better than everyone elses in a conference, except for their division leader, then they got stuck in 4th position and will face a 5th position come playoff time.
2007-03-24 11:48:23 · answer #1 · answered by BroncosD 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Why does there need to be points in the first place? Tradition? Sure, they were necessary when ties were around, but now that you can only win or lose, points are unnecessary, and you should not be awarded a point just because it takes you a little longer than 60 minutes to lose a game. Do teams in any of the other sports get a reward for losing in overtime? No, of course not. These other proposed systems based on how many points you gain in overtime is ridiculous because, again, the other sports do not outright reward or punish a team for taking extra time to decide a game.
My overly simplistic system is this: if you win a game, your win counter increases by one. If you lose a game, your loss counter increases by one. No points whatsoever.
It's the least confusing, and the most practical given there are no longer ties. I mean, seriously, can you look at the standings with some of these proposed systems and take "14-7 (2-1) (1-3)" seriously? Isn't is just much easier and more practical to say "17-11".
2007-03-24 12:54:44 · answer #2 · answered by rickdykes52 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i believe the current system is good, but the proposed changes are as follows: 3 points for a win, 2 points for an overtime period loss, and one point for a shootout loss. There really isnt a lot of support for the change right now, but maybe in 5 or so seasons, depending on how the NHL is doing, the could consider it.
2007-03-24 12:06:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would you punish both squads if it is not decided in the overtime. Four for an outright win is fine. How about two for an overtime win and three for a shootout win.
2007-03-24 11:38:21 · answer #4 · answered by fleury292001 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it would make the most sens to be like every other sport and have no point system. keep 82 games a season but base the standing on wins and losses. a win is rewarded for a regulation, ot, or shootout win, while a loss is given for a regulation, ot, or shoot out loss. it would be easier to understand and settle tiebreakers more efficiently.
2007-03-24 11:10:13 · answer #5 · answered by yanks4ever3 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with one point for a win no points for a loss. It would be easier to understand then the system you propose and it would be just as much of a incentive, regardless if in overtime or regular play.
2007-03-24 10:53:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
divide all your numbers in half, i.e. 2 points for outright win, .5 points for tie after 60 min, 1 point for OT win, .5 for shootout win.
regulation win = 2 points
OT win = 1.5 points
SO win = 1 point
OTL = .5 points
regulation loss = 0 points
2007-03-24 11:19:25 · answer #7 · answered by ca_lloyd 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
2 pts for a win...0 pts for a loss/ OVERTIME loss....1 point guarantee for each team if it goes to a shootout....and of course 2 pts for a shootout win.
2007-03-24 11:03:48 · answer #8 · answered by BrandonM 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One point for a win.
No points for a loss regardless if it is in overtime or regulation.
What's with awarding a team for tieing a game?? What a load of crap!
2007-03-24 10:35:16 · answer #9 · answered by lidstromnumber1fan 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This is just ridiculous , why dont you give a guy a 5 point field goal for making it past 50 yards , why dont you give a guy a 10 point TD if he runs more then 90 yards , Can you please stop changing the game and enjoy it . Its never been that good
2007-03-24 11:24:07 · answer #10 · answered by FRanky W 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋