There's no tying in football

[Jeemie]

I don't like the hockey points system. There should not be more points distributed in a tie game that goes to a overtime or a shoot out. If they have to have overtime/shootouts to break ties, they should go to 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime/shootout win, and 1 point for an overtime/shootout loss. That way there are just 3 points up for grabs in each game.

Actually, I wish they'd give up giving you points for just getting to OT, period.

That way, you might not sit on a tie game in regulation, knowing you would come away with at least one point.

Of course, then you wouldn't need a points system at all...

[etaoin22]

The hockey system has its good points and bad points. To begin with, the third point appears out of nowhere, as it were; after a tie, 3 points will be awarded in the standings to BOTH teams COMBINED. Whereas there would have been two points for a game which ends in regulation time. As the loser will get one point, and the winner two, the teams are "playing for the third point". Good? Bad? Can be argued both ways.

However,remember that the only crucial team aim in the standings is making the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

What the actual system does is tend to sink to the bottom of the playoff pool, or out of the playoffs, teams which acquire big regulation-time losing streaks. (I could mention a team from 120 miles away...).

[clem21]

First off, I'm fairly certain AJ is incorrect. There are only three columns in the standings; OT and shootout losses go together. Secondly, the rule is that there is 3 points for a win regardless, if you awarded only 2 for an overtime win you'd be penalizing both teams because they ended regulation tied, which frankly is ridiculous.

I guess there is some variation on how the standings are presented. My newspaper puts the hockey standings as W-L-OL-SO. The AHL website, which is the league I follow mostly closely, does as well. I see that NHL.com does not.

I'll stick with my point that the same amount of points should be up for grabs in any game. The idea that more points are awarded in total for an overtime game than for a regulation game is just wrong. I'm not sure how penalizing teams because they ended the regulation tied is ridiculous. You can disagree with it but what makes it worthy of ridicule? There is nothing wrong with rewarding teams that win in regulation or at least encouraging them to try to win in regulation.

It is an idea worthy of ridicule (and keep in mind I'm talking about the idea and not you) because a team can give maximum effort to win in regulation and still end up in a 5-5 tie or any score for that matter. You can try to win and play well all game and still end in a 0-0 tie because the goaltenders played great. How can you penalize the teams for that?? I can respond to you the same way I'd respond to SSS: Hockey is not like soccer. If you sit back in your zone and defend in soccer you can simply keep clearing it down the immense field correct? In hockey there are rules to prevent it. You know about the icing rule which not only brings the puck back in your zone but makes you keep the same players on the ice. But there's also the fact that once a team sets up with the puck you can't just attack them and knock the puck away like you might do in soccer. Any hockey team can pass around a passive defense which will lead to scoring chances.
As for Fanny, well your just hopeless madam so I won't bother...unless you can find me Hello Kitty hockey skates...then I'd try...

[Jeemie]

The official hockey site, nhl.com, does indeed lump all OT losses together.

I have seen some newspapers split them out, however.

Clem- you are wrong about points, however.

A regulation win is 2 points. 2 points to the winner + 0 to the loser = 2 points.

An OT win is 2 points, but now you have 2 points to the winner + 1 to the loser = 3 points

That means if a game goes to overtime, a third point materializes out of nowhere...to be awarded to the team that loses in OT.

It was originally added when a game could still end in a tie, as an incentive for teams to actually play to win in OT (before this point was added, teams would just play dump'n'chase for 5 minutes).

But once the shootout was added, the extra point was really kind meaningless.

[andrewjackson]

It is an idea worthy of ridicule (and keep in mind I'm talking about the idea and not you) because a team can give maximum effort to win in regulation and still end up in a 5-5 tie or any score for that matter. You can try to win and play well all game and still end in a 0-0 tie because the goaltenders played great. How can you penalize the teams for that??

I'm not penalizing anybody for a tie. Right now there is a reward for a tie. Three points are given out in a game that goes to OT rather than two for a win in regulation.

I'm a Red Wings fan. If Chicago and Nashville are playing and the game goes to OT that's bad for my team because three points will be given out rather than two. Why should their tie hurt me more than one team winning the game in regulation?

Teams play series quite a bit in the AHL to reduce travel. When Manitoba comes here the first week in December for two games both teams would be better off with two ties that are split in OT rather than splitting the games in regulation. What kind of sense does that make?

I still think it should be 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for an OT/SO win, and 1 point for an OT/SO loss. I don't see how that is penalizing teams that wind up in a tie. Each team gets at least one point and a chance to get an extra point. It is just recognizing that the game was so close that there was no score difference during regulation so you are splitting the points that the teams are playing for.

Every game should be worth the same. IMO.

[clem21]

In my book a win is a win and you can't take away points just because it took longer.
I agree with your Chicago/Nashville analogy except for the fact that Chicago and Nashville odds on are not going to intentionally tie to screw the Red Wings over. In the end the Red Wings will tie just as many games and it'll even out.
You want to "recognize the game that was so close" but no matter how you phrase it you are penalizing the winning team for no reason other than the game being close.

[lilclyde54]

Heck, why not determine a winner with a great big ole Tug-O-War?

[silverscreenselect]

I read a story today on Foxsports.com about changing the NFL rule to the NCAA rule (teams start at the 25-yard line and each team gets a possession). Essentially, the NCAA rule would reward teams with power running games and big wide receivers and hurt teams with speed and finesse receivers (you can't throw a fifty yard pass from the 25) as well as teams that have big play special teams specialists (no kickoff or punt returns here). If it came to a vote, teams that currently have that type of personnel would vote against the proposal and it would never pass.

[Jeemie]

In my book a win is a win and you can't take away points just because it took longer.
I agree with your Chicago/Nashville analogy except for the fact that Chicago and Nashville odds on are not going to intentionally tie to screw the Red Wings over. In the end the Red Wings will tie just as many games and it'll even out.
You want to "recognize the game that was so close" but no matter how you phrase it you are penalizing the winning team for no reason other than the game being close.

I agree- I say- do away with the points' system altogether, and just count wins and losses.

Who cares if it goes to OT? The winner wins, the loser loses.

[clem21]

In my book a win is a win and you can't take away points just because it took longer.
I agree with your Chicago/Nashville analogy except for the fact that Chicago and Nashville odds on are not going to intentionally tie to screw the Red Wings over. In the end the Red Wings will tie just as many games and it'll even out.
You want to "recognize the game that was so close" but no matter how you phrase it you are penalizing the winning team for no reason other than the game being close.

I agree- I say- do away with the points' system altogether, and just count wins and losses.

Who cares if it goes to OT? The winner wins, the loser loses.

I would actually be okay with that...

That said it'll never happen