# Should The NHL Do Away With The Points System?



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I'm throwing this out there for discussion. This is now the third season with shootouts, since there are no more ties in the NHL, why don't they just do away with the points system and rank teams based on raw record. IMO, I've always thought it was pretty lame giving a team a point for an overtime loss. Do away with the OTL column and rank on W's and L's just like every other sport.

I've wanted to discuss this for a while, but looking over the standings, it really sucks to see my Sabres who have been so hot the past month, low in the standings, even though they have more wins then other teams a head of them.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I say NO; keep the points system. Just my opinion. I am a traditionalist, but getting rid of ties and going to a shootout makes the ending very exciting, especially when it goes to the 6th or 7th round of shootout.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

As someone who doesn't watch much hockey, I will say the current system does not go well with a casual fan or someone trying to get into it. I usually watch most of the playoffs and the last few weeks of the season. I would prefer a no tie and win loss method. That might sound like blasphemy to a die-hard hockey fan, but thats just me.


----------



## jazzyd971fm (Sep 1, 2007)

Steve, are you suggesting that all regular season hockey games be played like playoff games ??????

Or the loser of overtime/shootout games get no points ??????


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

jazzyd971fm said:


> Steve, are you suggesting that all regular season hockey games be played like playoff games ??????
> 
> Or the loser of overtime/shootout games get no points ??????


I'm suggesting to keep it like it is, 5 minute overtime period, followed by a shootout if no goal is scored. The winner would win and the loser would just lose, and since no points would be given to the losing team, the points system really wouldn't have a purpose.

I'm all for tradition, but that changed after the lockout with the shootout. Even well before the lockout, I never understood why if a team loses in OT they still get a point. A win is a win, a loss is a loss and ties are nonexistent in the NHL now. Typically you get rewarded by winning, not semi rewarded for losing. I'm on no crusade to change how this is done, I just think it doesn't make a whole lotta sense.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

I agree with Steve's view. Why someone gets rewarded for losing doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## jazzyd971fm (Sep 1, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> I'm all for tradition, but that changed after the lockout with the shootout. Even well before the lockout, I never understood why if a team loses in OT they still get a point. A win is a win, a loss is a loss and ties are nonexistent in the NHL now. Typically you get rewarded by winning, not semi rewarded for losing. I'm on no crusade to change how this is done, I just think it doesn't make a whole lotta sense.


I can't argue with that logic, good points made. But I doubt that Gary Bettman would understand it. The NHL could go back to ESPN & keep Versus and NBC as broadcast partners as that would help exposure for the league. But he wouldn't see the logic in that. :nono2:

Let's Go Blues !!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I would imagine it came up in conversation at some point between Bettman and the rest of the big guys at the NHL, but even before shootouts OTL were given a point. I’d just like to know the reasoning and history behind it. Hockey is huge here, I’ve followed it on and off for most of my life, but being 22 that doesn’t mean much.

And yes, please get hockey back on ESPN. Watching it on NBC and VS is just painful. The announcers blow! 'Here come the blue shirt Sabres in with a rush, ohhhh the white shirts intercept the pass and the blue shirts have to regroup’. Everytime I hear him refer to the team by the color of their jersey I want to throw a puck at my TV. If it’s a Sabres game I’ll watch it, but I refuse to watch any other hockey on NBC or Versus, I tried hard last year with the Detroit/Anaheim series, I really did.


----------



## cadet502 (Jun 17, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> I would imagine it came up in conversation at some point between Bettman and the rest of the big guys at the NHL, but even before shootouts OTL were given a point. I'd just like to know the reasoning and history behind it. Hockey is huge here, I've followed it on and off for most of my life, but being 22 that doesn't mean much.
> 
> And yes, please get hockey back on ESPN. Watching it on NBC and VS is just painful. The announcers blow! 'Here come the blue shirt Sabres in with a rush, ohhhh the white shirts intercept the pass and the blue shirts have to regroup'. Everytime I hear him refer to the team by the color of their jersey I want to throw a puck at my TV. If it's a Sabres game I'll watch it, but I refuse to watch any other hockey on NBC or Versus, I tried hard last year with the Detroit/Anaheim series, I really did.


As far as reasoning, I'll give it a shot. Prior to 1983, NHL regular season games had no overtime at all. 3-20min periods, and if it ended in a tie, it ended in a tie, each team got a point. When they added the 5 min overtime in 1983, they left the point alone and even described it at one time as a winner in overtime getting a "bonus" point. So in a nod to history, a team "earns" a point with a tie in regulation. Old saying was "a tie on the road is as good as a win at home".

I wasn't in favor of the ovetime when they started it, to me overtime was only for the playoffs. A bit of a traditionalist, I still call the conferences and divisions by their old names. But I think shootouts are exciting, and I'm unsure if I want them to add them to the playoffs.

I think eliminating the point might actually liven up the third period in that teams might be less likely to play for the tie in the last 5-10 min of the 3rd.

That's how I see it, but then again can you really count on the opinion of a Ranger fan?


----------



## Jersey Girl (Oct 11, 2007)

Well, another Ranger fan chiming in here...

I don't have the chronology down, but at some point they decided to try to speed up the game and offer teams a type of 'no-lose' overtime, whereby each team was guaranteed a point and played for the possible third point. This was before the shootout, and if no goals were scored in the five minute OT each team went home with one point, and no third point was given out. The theory was that with nothing to lose each team would 'go for it' and play all out to score during the 4v4 overtime. 

Keep in mind this was done during the so-called 'Dead-puck' era, when action on the ice had really started slowing down. The success of the Devils,winning the cup in 1995 playing the dreaded neutral-zone trap, with lots of clutching and grabbing, led other teams (including the Rangers) to try to emulate this philosophy, and the game really slowed down. Games with shots on goal of 21 for one team and 13 for the other team were not uncommon. Hockey fans don't necessarily need high scoring games, but we would at least like to see opportunities to score. 

With the league adding the shootout the last few years, there really is no logical reason for the extra point anymore. Every game is guaranteed a winner and a loser, and too often we see both teams shut it down during the last five minutes of regulation in order to guarantee themselves a point.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Thanks for the history lessons guys. Now I understand why it's like that, just don't understand why it's still like that.  And it's also nice to see I'm not the only one who feels this way.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> I'm suggesting to keep it like it is, 5 minute overtime period, followed by a shootout if no goal is scored. The winner would win and the loser would just lose, and since no points would be given to the losing team, the points system really wouldn't have a purpose.
> 
> I'm all for tradition, but that changed after the lockout with the shootout. Even well before the lockout, I never understood why if a team loses in OT they still get a point. A win is a win, a loss is a loss and ties are nonexistent in the NHL now. Typically you get rewarded by winning, not semi rewarded for losing. I'm on no crusade to change how this is done, I just think it doesn't make a whole lotta sense.


Personally, I'd keep the points system but modify it. Maybe something like:
- Regulation win, 3 points.
- OT win, 2 points to winner, 1 point to loser.
- Shootout win, 1 point to winner, 0 points to loser.

Put some incentive to open up play in OT and actually try to generate some chances. And, for a team like my Sharks who are downright HORRID in the shootout, some incentive to avoid it!

Too often when I watch an OT period, I see 5 minutes of skating up and down the ice, with very little in the way of scoring chances. I figure if the Sharks get to OT, I can go grab a beer, make a sandwich, whatever... then come back 5 minutes later to watch them lose in the shootout, cause there probably won't be any scoring before then!

Of course, I won't cry in my beer if they change it as you've suggested. It does seem strange to reward a team for losing... But in the interests of "tradition", I voted to keep that going, but reward a team MORE for winning.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Actually that makes sense, and sounds like a good solution. I hear what you're saying about not really playing in OT. Not that I'm complaining, but Saturday night, the Flyers were on the Power Play for 3 out of the 5 minute overtime period, but didn't actually play. Ended up losing to the Sabres in a shootout. Or rewinding back to the third period. Philly was up by a goal, with 5 minutes and change left the Sabres get a double minor on Adam Mair for interference and Philly comes up empty handed and shortly later with 7.2 seconds left to go in regulation the Sabres tie it up. The Flyers had many opportunities to put the game away late or in OT, but they wound up losing anyway. Like I said, I'm not complaining just making observations


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> Personally, I'd keep the points system but modify it. Maybe something like:
> - Regulation win, 3 points.
> - OT win, 2 points to winner, 1 point to loser.
> - Shootout win, 1 point to winner, 0 points to loser.
> ...


That's a good idea. I agree that may increase competitive play in OT.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Actually that makes sense, and sounds like a good solution. I hear what you're saying about not really playing in OT. Not that I'm complaining, but Saturday night, the Flyers were on the Power Play for 3 out of the 5 minute overtime period, but didn't actually play. Ended up losing to the Sabres in a shootout. Or rewinding back to the third period. Philly was up by a goal, with 5 minutes and change left the Sabres get a double minor on Adam Mair for interference and Philly comes up empty handed and shortly later with 7.2 seconds left to go in regulation the Sabres tie it up. The Flyers had many opportunities to put the game away late or in OT, but they wound up losing anyway. Like I said, I'm not complaining just making observations


The Sharks had one like that the other night. Up by a goal againts Phoenix with about a minute to go, and we're like a turtle in it's shell, just trying to run out the clock. Phoenix took a minor and we're thinking the game's over! Not so fast. 46.1 seconds to go and we give up a shortie to tie it (and eventually lose in the shootout).

If there's an extra point at stake there, you'd like to think that the team keeps their foot on the gas, rather than trying to nurse a lead to the finish.

I've heard the 3 point win talked about by quite a few people over the years (including Ron Wilson, SHarks head coach, and Drew Remenda our TV Color guy).

I don't mind if they want to continue to reward teams who play well enough to not lose. I just think the current system disproportionately rewards them.

For instance, lets say you're fighting with another team for the 8 seed.
Your record to finish the season, 42-36-4 (88 pts). The other team vying for the spot is 35-29-18 (88 pts). Your record is basicaly 42-40, while the other team is 35-47, and yet you've earned the same number of points and you could potentially miss out on the playoffs depending upon tiebreakers.

Even if the only change they made was to reward a regulation win with 3 points, your team at 42-36-4 would have 130 points, with the other team having 122 points, giving you a comfortable 8 point cushion on the 8 seed.

On the flip side, this would probably cut down on playoff races going down to the last day, by providing some separation from the "very good" teams and the "okay" teams. As it is now, you can occasionally get the cinderella story who was "just good enough" to get in and makes a run in the playoffs.

I suppose if the Sharks were one of those "just good enough" teams, still, I'd not want the change made, but being one of the top team (or we should be, at least, though we aren't playing that way) I'd like to see winning rewarded.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Yep I know exactly what you're talking about I saw the recap of the Coyotes/Sharks game on Yahoo. All of this is very interesting, there could be a lot of changes made here, but I really am surprised they decided to keep it like it is. I do have to say again, I really do like your proposed three point plan.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Yep I know exactly what you're talking about I saw the recap of the Coyotes/Sharks game on Yahoo. All of this is very interesting, there could be a lot of changes made here, but I really am surprised they decided to keep it like it is. I do have to say again, I really do like your proposed three point plan.


The cynic in me says that until a "BIG" team misses out on a playoff spot because of the points system, they won't change it...

If the Red Wings missed out on the playoffs in a scenario like I created before, you might see a change.

But if the Coyotes lose out on a playoff spot to the Predators becuase of that scenario the league would hardly bat an eye.

The point system being what it is, it's not out of the realm of possibilities to have 6 teams fighting for 2 spots in the last week of the season. That kind of "playoff race" would become a rarity with the 3 point win because you'd have some separation between the top teams and the bottom teams. You might see a 3 way battle or something like that.

And for a league that already has trouble selling tickets - the more teams you can have "in it" on the last week of the season, the better. There are too many markets that will see ticket sales plummet when they're eliminated from the playoffs. If that happens 2 weeks from the end of the season, it's alot better for the health of the league than if it happens 4 weeks or 6 weeks from the end of the season.


----------



## cadet502 (Jun 17, 2005)

Check out Wes Goldstein's take on cbssportsline.com

http://www.sportsline.com/nhl/story/10545300

Makes sense, if a game that goes to ovetime is worth 3 total points, then a Win in regulation should be worth 3 points.


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

Steve Mehs said:


> I would imagine it came up in conversation at some point between Bettman and the rest of the big guys at the NHL, but even before shootouts OTL were given a point. I'd just like to know the reasoning and history behind it. Hockey is huge here, I've followed it on and off for most of my life, but being 22 that doesn't mean much.
> 
> And yes, please get hockey back on ESPN. Watching it on NBC and VS is just painful. The announcers blow! 'Here come the blue shirt Sabres in with a rush, ohhhh the white shirts intercept the pass and the blue shirts have to regroup'. Everytime I hear him refer to the team by the color of their jersey I want to throw a puck at my TV. If it's a Sabres game I'll watch it, but I refuse to watch any other hockey on NBC or Versus, I tried hard last year with the Detroit/Anaheim series, I really did.


Steve,

I have to agree, having VS as THE premier broadcast network for NHL games is a JOKE. If the VS. network is the premier partner of an entire league, how come VS has NO nightly News/Highlight show?, how come VS does NOT have games on any other nights other than Monday and Tuesday?, how come they can't or don't have on air talent that even have ANY clue about calling a live game?

I catch a lot of games on HDNet, and several on NHL Network from TSN. The TSN coverage just shows what the NHL coverage should be, and while I think HDnet's coverage is not that great it is MUCH better than the Schlock from VS.

 The NHL should have never left ESPN. Even though the NHL got more actual dollars from VS than what ESPN offered. The exposure of ESPN is worth more than the actual Dollar signs they got from VS. Especially considering that VS has treated the NHL coverage as an after thought and having VS throw the games to the back burner on THEIR LAME Network, was the worst decision Gary Bettman ever made.

Hey, here's a thought, how about hiring guys that know HOW to call a Game, like the Radio guys. I mean you should be able to close your eyes and see the game (from the Audio play by play) without the video if you can't, then these guys should NOT be calling the games.

I know I'm partial to my local Play by Play guys, but Rick Jeanneret has to be one of THE best Play by Play guys I've ever heard. Hell, he's even excited when the other team makes a great play or scores. The sheer joy and love of the sport comes through on each game he calls. After all isn't that the reason we watch the games is to be entertained, not to be talked to about things that have NOTHING to do with the action on the ICE.

John


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Agreed, Rick Jeanneret is the best sportscaster on the planet, the emotion he shows is second to none the catch phrases over the years are unforgettable. 

'May Day, May Day, May Day'
'Fa-Lalalalalalafontaine'
'Top self where momma hide the cookies'
'Chris Druuuuuuuuuuuuury'
'Oh brother, do you believe it'
'These guys are good, scary good'
'Call Planned Parenthood, the Population of Pominville goes up again'
'Get ready legion of doom, here come the Buffalo Sabres!'

I have Center Ice and find myself surfing games rather then watching, no current NHL commentator holds a candle to Jeanneret. Usually non Sabres fans find him obnoxious, when it reality he's just passionate and there's no doubt he loves this team as much as life itself, and even though the Cup has never come here, it doesn't matter to him. Last year game 5 against the Rangers, Drury's goal with 7.7 secs left and Afanaganovs goal in OT, RJ's reaction and commentary combines with the crowd shots of 19K in the Area and another 10K outside at HSBC Plaza had me both jumping for joy and in tears.

The best was at this years season opener when Jeanneret came over the speaker at the Arena and started talking about all the achievements from last season, you could tell how proud he was and all 18,690 of us in the Arena, and however many more thousands outside were all one. With every stat and achievement read off the crowd noise got louder, RJ got more emotional, and at the very end when he said ‘Buffalo is the new Hockeytown’ it was deafening. I watched the game when I got home on my DVR, TV didn't do it justice. That is one amazing atmosphere and I give a lot of credit to Rick Jeanneret, he's stuck by this team when it looked like there would be no team, he stuck by the steam during some very poor seasons. 

It is going to be a very sad day when he retires. Before that happens I want him to call a Game 7 Stanley Cup final game at HSBC that ends in overtime. Not just as a Sabres fan, but because he deserve it. I know that's just a dream, but fans of this team know one phrase 'Dream and Believe'.


----------



## Koz (Sep 16, 2006)

Late to the thread, but here's my 2 cents. All games should be worth 3 points. 3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/Shootout win, 1 for OT/Shootout loss, 0 for regulation loss. 

With the way it is now, total points don't mean anything. Some divisions happen to tie more, and thus, move their teams higher in the standings because of all the extra points their games have.

Not that the Wings are having any issues...


----------



## brian188 (Oct 13, 2007)

Koz said:


> Late to the thread, but here's my 2 cents. All games should be worth 3 points. 3 for regulation win, 2 for OT/Shootout win, 1 for OT/Shootout loss, 0 for regulation loss.
> 
> With the way it is now, total points don't mean anything. Some divisions happen to tie more, and thus, move their teams higher in the standings because of all the extra points their games have.
> 
> Not that the Wings are having any issues...


My thoughts exactly. Each game would be worth 3 points total, unlike now where some games are worth 2 some 3 total. Makes no sense.

The only problem with it is (and one of the problems with the current point system) is that teams end up taking it easy in the 3rd period if there is a tie. They simply want to hold on to get that guaranteed point. Then take their chances in OT. They need to figure a way to have an incentive to open up play in the 3rd period. The incentive is obvious in OT.

GO PENS!!!


----------

