Interesting suggestion -- shootouts *before* game

AT the very least, give 3 pts for a win, 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss, 0 for reg. loss.

Then everything matters.

shabbs wrote:

Hockeyhero22000 wrote:i have never been a fan of the shoot out because it makes the game go from being how the team player to who has the best shootout player but thats not the point i think that a shootout before (althoug would put fans in the seats) would as MOI said create a bad ot period...nothing better than when a team is on the outside of the playoffs and need 2 points and you see them working so hard in OT

Oh - I totally agree, not a fan of the shootout at all. But it is here, for now. I would prefer they play until someone scores.

Imagine having to play the end of back to back nights after the first game goes into the 4th OT. Probably not going to see much inspired hockey.

Just bring back the ties. In the end, the cream rises to the top in the playoffs anyway.

i agree give them a tie after 5 min is fine there is nothing wrong with a tie

hemlock wrote:

shabbs wrote:

Hockeyhero22000 wrote:i have never been a fan of the shoot out because it makes the game go from being how the team player to who has the best shootout player but thats not the point i think that a shootout before (althoug would put fans in the seats) would as MOI said create a bad ot period...nothing better than when a team is on the outside of the playoffs and need 2 points and you see them working so hard in OT

Oh - I totally agree, not a fan of the shootout at all. But it is here, for now. I would prefer they play until someone scores.

Imagine having to play the end of back to back nights after the first game goes into the 4th OT. Probably not going to see much inspired hockey.

Just bring back the ties. In the end, the cream rises to the top in the playoffs anyway.

But how many games would go that far? I think I remember the stats being that most games in the playoffs are sorted out within 10 minutes of OT. Those ultra long OT sessions are far and few between.

I'll settle for 20 mins of OT and then declare a tie.

How about that?

If the point structure went 3-2-1 the standings would look like this:

East
BOS - WSH - NJD - PHI - CAR - PIT - FLA - NYR
MTL - BUF - OTT - TOR - ATL - TBL - NYI

West
SJS - DET - CHI - CGY - VAN - STL - CBJ - MIN
ANA - EDM - NSH - PHX - DAL - LAK - COL

The Old School Pnts Style would have looked like this:

East
BOS - WSH - NJD - PHI - CAR - PIT - FLA - MTL
NYR - BUF - OTT - TOR - TBL - ATL - NYI

SJS - DET - CHI - VAN - CGY - CBJ - STL - MIN
ANA - NSH - DAL - EDM - LAK - PHX - COL

Its weird how these different ways of calculating the points only seem to change the 7-8-9 teams..

Yeah, the 3-2-1-0 point system has been tossed around for a while... not sure if the NHL would even entertain it.

it does make a lot more sense to have a three point system but the nhl does not seem to like it

Amnesia021 wrote:If the point structure went 3-2-1 the standings would look like this:

East
BOS - WSH - NJD - PHI - CAR - PIT - FLA - NYR
MTL - BUF - OTT - TOR - ATL - TBL - NYI

West
SJS - DET - CHI - CGY - VAN - STL - CBJ - MIN
ANA - EDM - NSH - PHX - DAL - LAK - COL

The Old School Pnts Style would have looked like this:

East
BOS - WSH - NJD - PHI - CAR - PIT - FLA - MTL
NYR - BUF - OTT - TOR - TBL - ATL - NYI

SJS - DET - CHI - VAN - CGY - CBJ - STL - MIN
ANA - NSH - DAL - EDM - LAK - PHX - COL

Its weird how these different ways of calculating the points only seem to change the 7-8-9 teams..

For those who have trouble comparing (like me - I had to look again and again...), I highlighted the changes in colour groups.

From a practical standpoint, it would have meant only one change in playoff teams, but three different playoff matchings (and one that swapped home team). In the end, it probably wouldn't have mattered, but it would likely have made for more interesting end-of-games, especially towards the end of the season.

And it would mess up the self-proclaimed pundits big-time.

The other things it would do is :

1. mess up the record books (or arguably, it would lock down the current record holders, since there would have to be new records for after the change); and
   
2. decrease the artificial parity that has been created by the "loser point" (which I think is ridiculous).