1 point win?

Habtastic · Guru

1 point win?

The Kahuna · Guru

I'm not against that, althought I'd prefer 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss as well as an ot loss. Changing it to 1 point for a win just seems wrong, kinda flies in the face of tradition. But if it comes down to it, I'd be all for 1 point for wins if that's the only way they can get rid of points awarded for ot losses.

davidb · Guru

I say 2pt win and do away with shootout. If tie at end of regulation, each team gets a point. I say play ot in 20 minute periods until there is a winner. I am sick and tired of seeing things watered down. Or have no OT at all you either Win Lose or Tie like years ago. Thats my opinion and I know it will not be shared by anyone else

Nil d · Guru

I'd like to see two points for a win and one for a tie.

As for OT, go to ten minutes 4-on-4 sudden death. (No points for OT loss.) You'd hardly ever get ties that way.

gfeaver · Veteran Member

2 points for a win regardless of how it is accomplished. eliminate the shoot-out. 4 on 4 overtime for 10 minutes, if still tied 1 point each. i hate the friggin shootout, and love 4-4 overtime

mdmrules · Member

I think it would be good for new or peripheral fans if they kept it the same for a few years... they have made a lot of changes... forget the media... there will always be unhappy people. I say leave well enough alone and watch how things develope over the next couple of years. What's there to improve? this has been one of the best playoff races in years.

superhab · Guru

davidb wrote:

I say 2pt win and do away with shootout. If tie at end of regulation, each team gets a point. I say play ot in 20 minute periods until there is a winner. I am sick and tired of seeing things watered down. Or have no OT at all you either Win Lose or Tie like years ago. Thats my opinion and I know it will not be shared by anyone else

Your wrong, i share your oppinion. 20 minute overtime would almost always decide a winner, besides i see nothing wrong with a hard fought tie, but with Bettman i know it will never happen, he's all about gimmicks to get more fans.

The Kahuna · Guru

superhab wrote:

davidb wrote:
I say 2pt win and do away with shootout. If tie at end of regulation, each team gets a point. I say play ot in 20 minute periods until there is a winner. I am sick and tired of seeing things watered down. Or have no OT at all you either Win Lose or Tie like years ago. Thats my opinion and I know it will not be shared by anyone else
Your wrong, i share your oppinion. 20 minute overtime would almost always decide a winner, besides i see nothing wrong with a hard fought tie, but with Bettman i know it will never happen, he's all about gimmicks to get more fans.

20 minute ot would be a killer for the players in the regular season, imagine getting in to 2 or 3 of those in a row. I actually like the shootout, but not for the lame idea it was introduced...excitement, nah, I like the fact that a clear decission is made every game. So award 2 points for any win and discard the single point. Seriously, why reward losing with one point? You'd see some fierce ot and some much better shootouts this way!

-- Edited by The Kahuna at 11:14, 2006-03-29

beakermania · Senior Member

If you get rid of the single point and make all wins worth 2pts, you are effectively making it a one point win system. Any game has only two possible outcomes for your team 2pts or 0pts. All changing it to 1pt and 0pts does is half everyones point total at the end of the year.

Desi · Senior Member

Doesn't matter to me how many points for a win IF every game is eventually decided, but to get ANY points when you've lost -- even in OT -- is wrong. How many games have we seen where both teams played the last two minutes conservatively in order to get that one point, hoping that they'd snag the second point in OT?

I love 4-on-4, but am not a fan of the shootout. It's a bush-league way to decide 65 minutes of hard-fought hockey. If it were up to me, we'd have a 5-minute 4-on-4 OT and that's it. Two points for a win then, and 1 for a tie. Period.

Les Canadiens sont la

The Kahuna · Guru

Right on Desi, that's exactly how I feel. (I agree with the top paragraph, but I actually hate the single point...so I guess I don't agree with your 2nd paragraph

) I like 2 points for traditional reasons, but if it has to be 1 point for a win that works for me.

-- Edited by The Kahuna at 00:40, 2006-03-30

plouf · Guru

Why do you need points at all if you just go with a win-loss system?

The Kahuna · Guru

You don't, as I've said twice and I beleive other feel the same way, 2 points is just for traditional reasons, it's alway been two for a win. Sure, one would do it fine, but then you'd have a massive difference in total points whe compared to past seasons.

beakermania · Senior Member

Exactly Plouf, if you went with just a Win-Loss system you know the American media would start using the Games Behind Formula they use for Baseball and Basketball almost immediately.

plouf · Guru

beakermania wrote:

Exactly Plouf, if you went with just a Win-Loss system you know the American media would start using the Games Behind Formula they use for Baseball and Basketball almost immediately.

All the more reason to keep the Canadian content (cf. the CFL, with all its vaguely gratuitous seeming different rules) and use a points system like the one I've been advocating:

3/0 regulation win/loss

2/1 OT (or shootout) win/loss