I Hate It.....

[Kel]

Old system was fine. Even keep the shootout if you can't handle ties.

2 pts for win
1 pt for tie
0 pts for

or

2 pts for win (R, OT or SO)
0 pts for loss (R, OT, or SO)

Then the record books remain relatively intact. As it stands now they are complete BS. Teams boasting about 95 point seasons and still missing the playoffs, like its a big deal. That's a false argument. Mythology created by the loser point. In fact, 95 points means your team is just a step above dog shite (i.e. Calgary, Toronto).

The NHL tweaks the game WAY too much. They are taking the tradition, hitting, records and spirit out of the league.

Sweet new set up guys, 7 team divisions and 8 team divisions with the same number of playoff spots. GTFOH.

I would rather they overhaul the point system than giving SO wins the same value as OT wins and worse, regulation time win. The loser point bugs me a lot less than the 2 points awarded to shootout winners. Give the shootout winner 1.5 points AT MOST.

[Meds]

I love the shoot out.

Granted it's a little weird in the context of the hockey game however, it is super entertaining and most people love it (even though most wont admit it).

While I will readily admit that I love the shootout for its entertainment component, I despise that it has bearing on the outcome of the game.

Regardless, with the loser point in place, teams can actually lose their way into contending for a playoff spot. That is BS. Play what, in reality, is below .500 hockey, and still get a shot at the Cup over a team that played .500 or slightly better? Retarded. As for Don Cherry's comment way back when about it "breaking his heart to see a team work so hard to come back and then lose in OT and get nothing...." well he can go stuff it. I usually don't disagree with Cherry, but in this case he needs to remember that if the team that made a comeback still lost in OT, the better team still won, and maybe, just maybe, there was some luck involved, but generally speaking any team that needs to make a comeback in the last half of the game deserves to be down by a few goals because their play early on was pathetic.

[Kel]

Regardless, with the loser point in place, teams can actually lose their way into contending for a playoff spot. That is BS.

To me, a shootout loss is not a real loss. Those points are not loser points because shootouts should not have counted anything in the standings. The worst thing is that the shootout winner got 2 points. Completely ridiculous to me.

[Fred]

On a brighter note Hodgson did well with his goal in the Shoot out IMO, kinda froze the goalie then a quality wrist shot up stairs.

Nice wrister for his earlier goal too

[Hockey Widow]

The problem is the old time hockey mentality. A tie always earned a team a point. People cannot let go of that so a compromise was struck wherein tied at the end of regulation and you kept the point. So if we are stuck with that then the fair thing to do is make all games count for the same number of points.

The current system does provide more entertainment and that is a plus. The way points are awarded does allow more teams to compete for a playoff spot and that garners interest and that is a plus. So even though I am not crazy about the system I do prefer it to the older version. But if you want equity then an outright win should count more than an OT or SO win and all games will produce equal value. I don't know how it would change the standings but I remember in the past when some enterprising individuals worked it out it did not have a dramatic effect on the standings. The good teams pulled away from the pack a little more and seedings changed but overall teams were still fairly competitive.

And if a regulation win earns 3 points there will be teams fighting to get those points. They won't be as satisfied to earn a 1 point for the tie and hope for the extra in OT or the SO. But will push for the extra two in regulation.

[Kel]

I would call it extremely unfair to award 2 points to a shootout win. Keep the "loser" point but please get rid of the 2 points for the shootout winner. A shootout win should never be worth as much as an overtime win, let alone regulation win. If people are really stuck with 2 points for a win, then award 1.5 points for a shootout win at most. Teams will open up in OT again and you'll see fewer shootouts. Furthermore, the point inflation in the standings will be less severe.

[Sticky]

I would rather they overhaul the point system than giving SO wins the same value as OT wins and worse, regulation time win. The loser point bugs me a lot less than the 2 points awarded to shootout winners. Give the shootout winner 1.5 points AT MOST.

I love 4 on 4 (sudden death) hockey, and the shootout... But having some games worth more than others is a fundamental problem.
As even the old system granted a point to a team that failed to win the game in regulation time, that point is not the one that should be criticized as being the "loser point". Instead, maybe it should be the third point that should be scrutinized, as it is the one that is awarded to a team that was not able to earn a regulation time win.
Would it be just too far outside of the box to suggest that an OT or shootout winner get 1.5 points (as suggested by Kel), with the loser getting just .5 of a point? A win would be worth three times more than a loss, which would certainly inspire urgent play. It would also stop penalizing all the teams that get wins and losses in regulation.
Would the hockey world be secure enough in it's self worth to withstand the possibility of teams finishing a campaign with a point total that featured a fraction?

I would suggest that for the integrity of the point system, all games need to be worth the same amount of points.

What I hate though... Is that the league likes the three point system, because it factors into the list of things that allow teams with less talent to be competitive, and as a result there is too many teams, and the product has become watered down as a whole.

...and also that I think about hair brained ideas like a fractional point system.

[Meds]

I would rather they overhaul the point system than giving SO wins the same value as OT wins and worse, regulation time win. The loser point bugs me a lot less than the 2 points awarded to shootout winners. Give the shootout winner 1.5 points AT MOST.

I love 4 on 4 (sudden death) hockey, and the shootout... But having some games worth more than others is a fundamental problem.
As even the old system granted a point to a team that failed to win the game in regulation time, that point is not the one that should be criticized as being the "loser point". Instead, maybe it should be the third point that should be scrutinized, as it is the one that is awarded to a team that was not able to earn a regulation time win.
Would it be just too far outside of the box to suggest that an OT or shootout winner get 1.5 points (as suggested by Kel), with the loser getting just .5 of a point? A win would be worth three times more than a loss, which would certainly inspire urgent play. It would also stop penalizing all the teams that get wins and losses in regulation.
Would the hockey world be secure enough in it's self worth to withstand the possibility of teams finishing a campaign with a point total that featured a fraction?

I would suggest that for the integrity of the point system, all games need to be worth the same amount of points.

What I hate though... Is that the league likes the three point system, because it factors into the list of things that allow teams with less talent to be competitive, and as a result there is too many teams, and the product has become watered down as a whole.

...and also that I think about hair brained ideas like a fractional point system.

The "old" system that I know sure as hell didn't give the loser anything. It was 60 minutes of 5-on-5 and then 5 minutes of OT. A tie meant the teams split the 2 points. Otherwise it was winner take all.....as it should be. Then things changed, and teams seemed content to split the difference when a game was important, so they would play for the tie. During the dead puck era this meant way too many games finishing in a draw, it was around this time I recall hearing (probably Cherry) comments about how American viewers didn't like the tie games, Yankee's need to see a winner and a loser, so the NHL catered to the majority and went to 4-on-4 and the loser gets a single point. Then several years later, following the lockout, the shootout was instituted to do completely away with the "ratings dreaded" tie-game.

In 1999-00, the first year of the "loser point", the Hurricanes sat out in 9th and watched the Sabers finish 8th. Buffalo finished with 35 wins, 11 ties, and 4 OTL. Carolina finished with 37 wins, 10 ties and 0 OTL. Carolina never lost a game in OT, and yet Buffalo is rewarded with a playoff spot for losing 4. How does that make sense?

In 2001-02, Vancouver made the playoffs, but it had come down to the last couple of games and they only squeaked in over the Oiler's by a meager 2 points. That year the Canucks finished with 4 more wins than Edmonton. That should have been an 8 point difference, although ties were still in effect, so the margin should only have been 3 points.

In 2005-06 the Oiler's won 41 games, they finished 3 points ahead of Vancouver and Los Angeles in the standings and went on to run to the finals where they lost to Carolina. Vancouver and LA both finished that season with 42 wins, yet they had to watch the a team, that wasn't good enough to win more than half their games, get a chance to play for the Cup.

In 2006-07, Calgary finished ahead of Colorado for the final playoff spot with fewer wins.

In 2007-09, three teams made the playoffs ahead of Carolina, all three teams had won fewer games.

Another thing I hate is that when you win your division you are guaranteed a top 3 seed. I remember watching in 2001-02 where Carolina won their pathetically weak SE division, and as the season was winding down to the last 5 games, there was a chance that Montreal was going to finish outside the playoffs but have more points than Carolina. There was, at one point, a few days where they were tied for points but Carolina was 3rd and Montreal was in 8th. At the end the Habs lost a couple and Carolina won a couple so the disparity wasn't as obvious. Regardless, the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th seeds in the East ALL had more points than the 3rd spot Hurricanes. This means home-ice advantage in the opening round went to a team that didn't really earn it. The NHL is retarded.

[coco_canuck]

The best argument for keeping the current system is the financial returns of it.

With deep and late playoff races there is increased interest in all those markets and that helps gate and TV revenues both locally and nationally.

For a league that has to maximize all it's revenue streams, they need parity, or at the very least parity between the teams ranked 10-30.

The point system is an equalizer that keeps the less talented teams in games and competitive in the standings. Typically, the best teams make the playoff regardless of the system, and it's almost always top 5-10 teams that make it to the conference finals.

From a fan perspective, more games carry meaning, and from a revenue stand point it's a no brainer.

In terms of it being the most ideal system, I don't think it is, but those two factors above are too important for the NHL to ignore.

[ESQ]

I'm totally over the shootout - its so random and the better team loses too often.

I wonder if UWSaint has updated his mega-statistical analysis on third-period scoring. When he did it (I think about 2 years after the shootout started, or maybe it was just looking at adding the loser point), he found there was virtually no difference in third period scoring, so the argument that the loser points makes teams shut down in the third and play just to preserve the loser point wasn't actually correct.