Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

chippa13

GM Meetings

Recommended Posts

I've said for years that if you want to see better effort at the ends of games, give three points for a regulation win. I don't think I'm bothered by the concept of three points handed out if the game goes to overtime, but we've all seen teams play passively that last two minutes because they want at least the point; conversely, as the end of the season approached and teams needed to collect three points, I think you might even see them pull goalies to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said for years that if you want to see better effort at the ends of games, give three points for a regulation win.

I agree and have been saying the same thing for a while. You want games to end in regulation? Give teams an extra incentive to try and win. As it is now, there is rarely anything to lose by keeping it tight and playing to get to OT and trying to win there or in the shootout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they said they put an end to ties because teams just half-assed it in OT, to guarantee a point from the tie. Now they jus half-ass it toward the end of regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the best solution to spur teams to not just try hanging on would be a sliding scale for winning the game, but no points for losing. So three points for winning in regulation, two points for winning in OT, and one point for winning a shootout.

I've always felt the only argument against three points for regulation wins would be the purists howling that teams could now beat Montreal's hallowed 132 points....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on board with devaluing a shoot out win to a single point. 3 points for regulation win and 2 points for OT but I would give 1 point to an OT loss. I would hope it would encourage a more aggressive nature in OT; go for 2 and still get 1 against play it safe and only get 1 or none.

Teams that consistently win in regulation should be rewarded and teams that consistently go in OT should have to win for them to stay in the playoff picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the best solution to spur teams to not just try hanging on would be a sliding scale for winning the game, but no points for losing. So three points for winning in regulation, two points for winning in OT, and one point for winning a shootout.

I've always felt the only argument against three points for regulation wins would be the purists howling that teams could now beat Montreal's hallowed 132 points....

I think if you go to no points for losing then teams will absolutely avoid risks late in tie game and overtime and work really hard on their shootout skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You two are right. I kinda forgot that's what happened years ago, when team's would almost play tennis the last couple of minutes to avoid losing the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you go to no points for losing then teams will absolutely avoid risks late in tie game and overtime and work really hard on their shootout skills.

At the end of the season, I think you would see teams making a play of the playoffs push late in games, but that would be a small percentage of the overall number of games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about awarding NO points for a tie? It would certainly eliminate the possibility of two teams playing it safe just to get the point for the tie/OT? Just go to 5 minute OT with either 4/5 skaters per side and let them fight for two points. Winner take all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do that then any team with a one goal lead in the third period will refuse to cross the redline.

That happens pretty frequently now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do that then any team with a one goal lead in the third period will refuse to cross the redline.

Maybe, but it would force the team losing to really bring the fight to the opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The extra point helps to keep the standings spread compressed. The longer that teams are in the playoff hunt, the longer fans will show up to games (excluding inelastic markets like Toronto where winning doesn't matter). Better attendance = more ticket revenue. The extra point isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The extra point helps to keep the standings spread compressed. The longer that teams are in the playoff hunt, the longer fans will show up to games (excluding inelastic markets like Toronto where winning doesn't matter). Better attendance = more ticket revenue. The extra point isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Spot on, it stands to reason that the NHL is more concerned about the significances of the game rather than the actual play. Aside from the 5-6 teams that drop off sometime in January (or sooner) having most team have meaningful home games until April is important for a ticket revenue driven league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...