Getting rid of the tie was the best thing the NHL ever did

[24 others]

OT/SO is like 'kissing your sister' – you couldn't score during 60 minutes of real hockey, so let's engineer a fake way of getting a "W".

Unexpectedly, the "what is more like kissing your sister" question is becoming an interesting discussion.

 

[Bizz]

Ties were fine.

If they're acceptable in the NFL and Soccer, then nobody should have a problem with ties in Hockey during the regular season.

 

[TossingPizzas]

"I hate ties. They're like kissing your brother"

- Julie 'The Cat' Gaffney

I've kissed my brother and ties are way better even though I don't have a brother.

 

[Rpenny]

The just need to get rid of the loser point since there is now a clear winner and teams often coast the last few minutes of a tie game known they have a single pt lined up regardlessly

 

[hangman005]

Nah I much prefer the tie... but I don't see them coming back. Shootouts are garbage, but offer a radical solution to make them even more and less garbage. First winning a shootout earns you no extra points.... losing a shootout you don't even get the loser point. so instead of 3 point games you can also get one point game which should by aggregate even out.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Wait, when did the league "get rid of ties"?

I was always told that the loser point was really "both teams getting a point for being tied after regulation".

So which is it? Does the league still recognize ties after all, or can we finally admit that any loss after regulation results in one team receiving a loser point?

 

[Machinehead]

I have bad news for those who hate ties: The current system does nothing to reduce them. If 60 minutes of real hockey ends in a draw, you've just watched a tie. In fact, tie games happen at least as often as ever. What happens after those 60 minutes – a contrived 3-on-3/SO contest – doesn't change the results of the hockey game you spent two hours watching.

Yes, OT/SO gives you a result, but it doesn't tell you which team won the hockey game, it just tells you who won a 5-minute contest. OT/SO is like 'kissing your sister' – you couldn't score during 60 minutes of real hockey, so let's engineer a fake way of getting a "W".

If you sincerely believe a regular-season OT/SO gives you a legit "W", then why not have it in the playoffs? What's the point of watching playoff overtime, which feels like an endless tie, when we can skip ahead to the result you crave?

I understand what you're saying, and my genuine response is that I just don't think the regular season matters that much, and certainly, a single result out of 82 doesn't.

Participating in a hockey forum and investing a lot in a game, not to mention re-mortgaging the house to get Rangers tickets, in the vacuum of that single event, I want to see that event decided.

In the playoffs it's different because the playoffs matter.

Maybe it's "fake" in the spirt of competition and true hockey, but in the regular season, I'm mostly just looking to be entertained.

 

[SladeWilson23]

There still are ties. Both teams get one point for a regularion tie.

 

[AlainVigneaultsGum]

More like kissing a really hot stepsister.

 

[howkie]

What are you doing step-bro?

 

[mattihp]

3 on 3 is not hockey.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Ties were better than 3 point games.

Ties are for the weak minds.

 

[Slats432]

People that support ties mostly likely weren't season ticket holders when there still were ties. I was. Ties suck. More than a shootout.

Driving to Northlands Coliseum in -30, parking and walking 5 minutes to get inside to watch 3 hours of no result so you could freeze on the way back to the car was annoying as f***.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

Honestly I rather have ties back if it meant the end of shootouts and OTL point.

 

[Calderon]

I love maths as much as the next guy but what's really the great argument against the extra OT point other than it being, you know, extra? I don't recall any huge stir about a team losing on a playoff berth because a team just under them managed to eek out into overtime in the last RS game or something to that nature. I'm just saying that something isn't inherently bad even if it lacks the mathematical symmetry.

 

[5 Minute Major]

Ties are for the weak minds.

And three point games are for the low intelligence fans that can’t see the problem with games having different point values up for grabs.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

And three point games are for the low intelligence fans that can’t see the problem with games having different point values up for grabs.

I'd have no issue if the NHL went to 2, maybe even 3 points for a win and 0 for any type of loss.

Or hell got rid of the point system and went to games back like every other sport in North America.

In fact not only would I not have a problem with it, I'd prefer it.

Nice try but you aren't catching me that easy.

 

[beedee]

This gets awfully disturbing when one poster says "ties=kissing your sister", and now you're saying "f*** ties"?

I feel awkward...

 

[Sniper99]

3 on 3 is not hockey.

they play with sticks and a puck and a couple nets, Looks like hockey to me. Fun as well.

 

[Sniper99]

People that support ties mostly likely weren't season ticket holders when there still were ties. I was. Ties suck. More than a shootout.

Driving to Northlands Coliseum in -30, parking and walking 5 minutes to get inside to watch 3 hours of no result so you could freeze on the way back to the car was annoying as f***.

here comes the "what are you talking about, the result is a draw/tie" crowd.

 

[brentashton]

I'm confused now
Is kissing your sister a good or back thing?

Depends if tongue was used.

 

[BertCorbeau]

3 on 3 is not hockey.

It’s pond hockey

 

[Junohockeyfan]

Instead of a shoot-out, each team should pick their best fighter and they should square off. If its a tie, then the teams pick a second fighter to square off. Until there is only one man standing.

This would be a huge boost goons. They have been a dying breed.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

You know what has to go ? The term "loser point". It is such a lame Boomer take.

Arguing the name of something when it’s not 1 thing and also not the other thing is most definitely not a boomer take. A boomer take would be that they abolish the participation points. Or that a game only has 2 states, wins and loses, and that any other option is a sin against god.

 

[Channelcat]

I'm fine with ties. I like a system that makes sense.