Toggle sidebar

Around The NHL: Part Anybody's Guess (3/14: BoG approves realignment)

  • Thread starter Thread starter *Bob Richards*
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Grind Jam Grind said:
It's not a loser point. It's a tie point. You don't get a point for losing. You get a point for being tied after regulation. Although I agree that it should leave the game. IMO, a 3 PT regulation win would be the best idea, but the league likes "parity," AKA more meaningful games late in the season and closer playoff races.
Click to expand...

I don't care how the NHL words it. The team that loses in OT leaves the game with one more point than the went in with. That's a loser point.
 
Grind Jam Grind said:
It's not a loser point. It's a tie point. You don't get a point for losing. You get a point for being tied after regulation. Although I agree that it should leave the game. IMO, a 3 PT regulation win would be the best idea, but the league likes "parity," AKA more meaningful games late in the season and closer playoff races.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about this earlier. Reward the reg win with 3 points, just like they are doing in soccer.
 
Grind Jam Grind said:
It's not a loser point. It's a tie point. You don't get a point for losing. You get a point for being tied after regulation. Although I agree that it should leave the game. IMO, a 3 PT regulation win would be the best idea, but the league likes "parity," AKA more meaningful games late in the season and closer playoff races.
Click to expand...

I could care less about the overall picture because IMO over the course of an 82 game season.. the best teams get in 99% of the time.

I'd be curious if any of the other point systems would drastically change many of the playoff teams/seeding over the last few years..

I'd prefer a point system that doesn't lead to a dull last few minutes at the end of a third period that's tied. No reason to take any chances because you're going to get a point if you just sit back.. then you can try for another few minutes in OT before sitting back again and waiting for the SO.
 
DevilChuk said:
I could care less about the overall picture because IMO over the course of an 82 game season.. the best teams get in 99% of the time.

I'd be curious if any of the other point systems would drastically change many of the playoff teams/seeding over the last few years..

I'd prefer a point system that doesn't lead to a dull last few minutes at the end of a third period that's tied. No reason to take any chances because you're going to get a point if you just sit back.. then you can try for another few minutes in OT before sitting back again and waiting for the SO.
Click to expand...

That's the NHL's reason for adding the loser point. As much as I hate it, it makes sense.
 
Parker McDonald said:
I don't care how the NHL words it. The team that loses in OT leaves the game with one more point than the went in with. That's a loser point.
Click to expand...

Technically, if the game ended before OT/SO ended, each team would leave with a point. Hence, it's a tie point.

Do:
3 pts for regulation win.
2 for OT/SO win.
1 for OT/SO loss.
0 for regulation loss.
I would prefer that OT and SO wins were not valued the same, but then regulation wins would have to be 4 points.
 
Grind Jam Grind said:
Technically, if the game ended before OT/SO ended, each team would leave with a point. Hence, it's a tie point.

Do:
3 pts for regulation win.
2 for OT/SO win.
1 for OT/SO loss.
0 for regulation loss.
I would prefer that OT and SO wins were not valued the same, but then regulation wins would have to be 4 points.
Click to expand...

No, if they didn't give the loser point, they would go to OT and one team will leave with nothing. That's how it used to be once the NHL introduced OT in the regular season. I do support the three-point system, though.
 
Parker McDonald said:
That's the NHL's reason for adding the loser point. As much as I hate it, it makes sense.
Click to expand...

Their reason for the loser point is to keep the standings close and exciting.. and while that does the trick for teams that ultimately shouldn't be in the playoff race anyways (i.e. their fans fool themselves into thinking they have a better shot than they actually do because of OTL), I think there are other systems out there that would do the same without dulling play too much.

Or maybe that's just my spoiled POV from a team that hasn't really had any problems (aside from one disastrous season) making the playoffs the last decade and a half.. I guess fans of a franchise that barely competes for the top 8 every year ala Toronto probably have a different view of the loser point.
 
Parker McDonald said:
No, if they didn't give the loser point, they would go to OT and one team will leave with nothing. That's how it used to be once the NHL introduced OT in the regular season. I do support the three-point system, though.
Click to expand...

If the game is tied after 60 mins, each team gets a point. It ends up being the same thing anyway, I just don't like it being called a loser point. It's not a reward for losing. If you want rewards for losing, look no further than the draft. (unless you're the devils in 2011.)
 
Just wondering if you guys think the Ovie trade rumors are starting to have legs?
 
Pizza said:
Just wondering if you guys think the Ovie trade rumors are starting to have legs?
Click to expand...

I don't know who'd want to acquire him. He has the biggest cap hit in the league, for a ton more years, and he's definitely not the best player. Doesn't backcheck, doesn't kill penalties, takes bad ones, and seems to have lost his edge.

In a vacuum, he's still a great player. Take into account everything that comes with him, however, and he's a huge risk for any team looking to add him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom