Do you miss the Pre-Cap Superteams or do you prefer parity?

[BertCorbeau]

Selflessly I like parity but the current cap and lotto system can obviously be improved

Divisional structure, playoff format, and mostly the “loser point” need to be addressed though.

 

[Burt Macklin]

There is no such thing as a loser point, just a extra point to the team that wins the gimmick 3v3 or shootout, ties at the end of regulation were always awarded one point each. 3 point system would fix this illusion of parity

 

[Golden_Jet]

There is no such thing as a loser point, just a extra point to the team that wins the gimmick 3v3 or shootout, ties at the end of regulation were always awarded one point each. 3 point system would fix this illusion of parity

Let’s eliminate the loser point please,
No they weren’t always awarded a point, the loser point came in 99.

From 1983 to 1999, teams could win the game in a five-minute overtime, earning two points for a win, one point for a tie, and zero points for an overtime loss

 

[cowboy82nd]

I recall Rangers having so called "super teams" every year. Collecting free agents like Pokémon cards. However they were never very "super" and sucked.

Those weren't super teams just very costly teams.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Not really but their should be benefits for generating more revenue, you should get an extra 5-10% to spend if you generate a certain amount.

You do. You can spend more on coaches, equipment, training facilities, and the like.

 

[Gil Gunderson]

I recall Rangers having so called "super teams" every year. Collecting free agents like Pokémon cards. However they were never very "super" and sucked.

UFA’s were like 32+ years old. It would be much different with modern UFA rules.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Let’s eliminate the loser point please,
No they weren’t always awarded a point, the loser point came in 99.

From 1983 to 1999, teams could win the game in a five-minute overtime, earning two points for a win, one point for a tie, and zero points for an overtime loss

Says it right here, one point for a tie (which the game is at the end of regulation) and zero points for an overtime loss. I don't see anything that says loser point.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Says it right here, one point for a tie (which the game is at the end of regulation) and zero points for an overtime loss. I don't see anything that says loser point.

Watch for where it says
post 99 - loser point
Pre 99- no loser point

It was in response to poster who said there has always been a loser point.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Watch for where it says
post 99 - loser point
Pre 99- no loser point

It was in response to poster who said there has always been a loser point.

because up until 99 overtime was still actual hockey, 5v5.

you cant penalize a team for losing a gimmick, 4v4, 3v3 and SO are not getting beat legitimately. that's why they aren't used in the playoffs.

so post 99 its each team gets 1 point for being tied after real hockey, then they compete for an extra point in a gimmick

 

[cowboy82nd]

Watch for where it says
post 99 - loser point
Pre 99- no loser point

It was in response to poster who said there has always been a loser point.

My bad

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

because up until 99 overtime was still actual hockey, 5v5.

you cant penalize a team for losing a gimmick, 4v4, 3v3 and SO are not getting beat legitimately. that's why they aren't used in the playoffs.

so post 99 its each team gets 1 point for being tied after real hockey, then they compete for an extra point in a gimmick

Up until 99, teams were usually content to just take the 1 point, and would often focus solely on playing good defense rather than actually trying to score/win the game. As a result, most of the regular season games that went to OT still ended in a tie. In 1993, the Bruins had 13 ties and only 2 OT wins.

What's the actual benefit of playing 5 extra minutes of what is usually boring 5v5 hockey in an attempt to break the tie if the vast majority of the games that go to OT still end up being ties? The new OT rules may not be exactly the same as "actual hockey", but they are at least successful at breaking the tie 100% of the time.

 

[WarriorofTime]

There is no such thing as a loser point, just a extra point to the team that wins the gimmick 3v3 or shootout

Semantics, you can call it the loser point, the "overtime/shootout win bonus point" or whatever you want. The reason loser point has caught on most is that the standings don't differentiate between wins (whichever team walked out the contest's winner gets their 2 points, but in certain instance, a team walking away a loser gets a point).

You are correct that the true "issue" is that not all games are awarded the same point value. The only way to prevent the incentive of teams intentionally letting every game go to overtime for mutually self-interest is the lesser important factor that Regulations Wins is first tiebreaker.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

I miss the decade post lockout.

2005-2015 is the best hockey we got. Its been absolutely dog shit ever since they removed the division and went on to the wild card. The Habs have played the Bruins twice this year. Ridiculous. They need to nurture rivalries, its what makes the games fun.

As a general rule Gary, and anyone he selects for league ops positions are mediocre at best, and actively f***ing up the thing they are hired to do at worst. It's how we ended up with basic issues like obstruction and inflated goalie gear that should take 2-3 seasons max to solve taking a solid 10-20 years in reality.

 

[RDTBay4]

The league should switch to a 3-2-1 point system.

 

[Mattb124]

Parity all day every day.

 

[tabness]

prefer everything precap