EHM The Blue Line

Well, many of you probably saw during the Flyers - Bruins game on Versus, that the NHL is currently looking at the standings' scoring system. It currently awards 2 points for a win, 0 points for a regulation loss, and 1 point for an OT/SO loss.

However, in their new proposals, "Scenario A" could see 2 points for any win, and 0 points for any loss.

"Scenario B" could see 3 points for a win, 2 points for an OT/SO win, and 1 point for an OT/SO loss.

Personally, my no-hesitation vote goes to Scenario A. It works; It's simple; It's logical. There are no special conditions to figure it out: Whoever walks out of the arena with a win, gets 2 points. Whoever walks out with a loss, gets no points.

Unfortunately, the NHL is king when it comes to confusion... so Scenario B, the most pointlessly confusing system known to man, will probably get heavy consideration and end up winning.

P.S. The owners are meeting tomorrow(I think that's what they said) to talk about this issue. So maybe we'll know more about this when it's over tomorrow.

Scenario B is the way they did it in soccer for years. That has changed now to an even more confusing system..at least in North America in some leagues...where they award a bonus point if you score more than 3 goals. Even if you lose.

But for anything in the NHL to change must have 20 owners vote yes. Or at least must have Buttman tell them to vote yes. As we saw with the schedule. Likelihood of this changing in the NHL is slim at best. 20 owners will not agree on which proposal. Just like the schedule. Plus some seem to be worried about the "record book" when it comes to this, yet not when it comes to goals/nets.

If I had to make a choice I would opt for A as well. Because in B a team gets up in reg time will sit back in the trap forever to try and hold on to a 1-0 lead. Back to the same old rubbish that way.

I like scenario B. I don't think a team should be awarded all of the points if they couldn't win the game in 60 minutes.

Winner gets 2 points. Loser gets none. Everything else just rewards losers.

Option A, please! Winners get points, losers don't. Either that or go back to the old way of ending a tie if nobody wins in overtime. Shootouts only showcase some skills but not all the skills needed to play hockey.

Write me down for Option A with clarification: 2 pts for a win in 65 minutes of hockey and 0 points to both teams aka double punishment for allowing the game to go to be decided by a shootout.

Yep Minty...that sounds great. Won't happen, but sounds great!!! Make em play real hockey til someone wins. Even if it means starting the next day's game right after they finish the first one. I guarantee noone will sit back and play trap-rubbish then.

batdad wrote:Make em play real hockey til someone wins.

The thing is, to me? Ties are real hockey. I've seen some killer tied games. The shootout and other "tie remedies" are completely rediculous to me. They are "Bettmanization" of the sport made by a man who doesn't understand the game or what makes it great. Even worse, it's made based upon his thinking he knows exactly what fans want. So for years he's sought to outlaw ties and now he finally has. At this point though, two years in, I'd be willing to say there are more people that hate shootouts and would rather see them gone than there ever were that just hated ties and wanted to see them gone.

A. Definitely A. A loss in overtime is a loss. You lose, you get zip. And no shootouts -- if it's tied after 65, both go home with a point.

We have B over here. It's confusing as hell; we've had it for two years now, and I still can't read the standings right, because the good old W-L-T has been replaced with a line that has 3-point wins, 2-point wins, OT/shootout losses for 1 point, and losses in some order. Gimmicky sucky stuff. No wonder attendance is down.

I'd like it to be 2 or nothing, but it shouldn't be that way when there's the shootout. It would be even more of an advantage for teams like Minnesota to horde points they don't deserve.

Careful what you say about teams being awarded extra points for scoring lots of goals....Butthead may be listening.

I think it should be like in soccer in France: 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw and 0 for a loss. And no shoot out.

No overtime (in regular season, but still in playoffs). No shootout. Just 60 minutes of real hard hockey. 2 points for a win. 1 point for a tie. 0 point for a loss.

I agree with people who say it should go back to the way it was, 2 for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss - any loss.

Shadd666 wrote:No overtime (in regular season, but still in playoffs). No shootout. Just 60 minutes of real hard hockey. 2 points for a win. 1 point for a tie. 0 point for a loss.

You're my kind of man. That's what I'd really like. I just assumed that the 5-minute OT is already such an established part of regular-season games that we can't get rid of it anymore. But what I'd really love to see is a move back to the 60-minute regular-season game, no matter what the scoreline after 3 periods.

Minstrel wrote:Write me down for Option A with clarification: 2 pts for a win in 65 minutes of hockey and 0 points to both teams aka double punishment for allowing the game to go to be decided by a shootout.

I'm not sure how seriously you meant this, but I think giving both teams zero points for not deciding the game after a legitimate period of extra time(legitimate as in "playing hockey"... not "taking a series of free one on one shots"), would lead to a serious increase in competition. And what's the NHL desperate for right now, in order to gain more fans... competition.

Basically what I'm saying is, even if you meant that suggestion as a slight joke or exaggeration - I think it could actually accomplish what the NHL wants right now, and it wouldn't alter the dignity of the game to do it(like most of their ideas are doing). So in conclusion... I like your idea.

Why remove the regular season OT? It's awesome seeing the end-to-end action.

I get what you are saying Minty, re ties being a part of the game. I tend to agree with you on that. However, since "THE SHOW" does not feel that ties are appropriate, and the average American fan has stated that one thing they do not get are ties (re baseball, football--so rare, basketball), then the league should proceed until they have a winner. PLAYING SOME FORM OF REAL HOCKEY.

Originally I did not like the 4x4 but I have learned to live with it as part of the game. Sometimes it is even exciting. Like the Nucks-Hawks sleeper actually came alive the other night. The BCHL (British Columbia Junior Hockey League) does the gradual decrease in the number of players on the ice thing. 4x4 for 5 min, 3x3 for 5 minutes. darn that is exciting. Especially here, watching a guy like Kyle Turris in the 3x3.

However, ties are okay by me. It is just that I do not think you will ever see the NHL go back to the old ways. Not gonna happen, so need to find something that works better than what they have now. Shootout sucks. Mind you I never turn off the TV, or leave the rink when it starts!

The OT idea of the BCHL does interest me, even though it is not the best solution to an issue that should not be an issue (tie games) because at least there is some semblance of hockey going on. And even slow guys have to skate when you get to 3x3.

If ties aren't about being back, i'm okay with it. But please end those stupid shootouts! 10 minutes overtime should allow more time to score and would be more entertaining than shootouts! The 3vs3 could also be an option. Anyway, no shootouts anymore!

I think the point system they use now is just fine and more exciting when you think about it. Makes for closer races towards the end of the stretch for playoff spots and so forth.

But I also agree that if you lose the game, whether it be in regulation or in OT/shootout. You shouldn't get any points, but like most people believe and see, the NHL will probably adapt the 2nd scenario and confuse everyone.

B. Stinson wrote:

Minstrel wrote:Write me down for Option A with clarification: 2 pts for a win in 65 minutes of hockey and 0 points to both teams aka double punishment for allowing the game to go to be decided by a shootout.

I'm not sure how seriously you meant this, but I think giving both teams zero points for not deciding the game after a legitimate period of extra time(legitimate as in "playing hockey"... not "taking a series of free one on one shots"), would lead to a serious increase in competition. And what's the NHL desperate for right now, in order to gain more fans... competition.

Basically what I'm saying is, even if you meant that suggestion as a slight joke or exaggeration - I think it could actually accomplish what the NHL wants right now, and it wouldn't alter the dignity of the game to do it(like most of their ideas are doing). So in conclusion... I like your idea.

Well I stated it the way I did because I abhorr the shootout but yes I'd love to see a "you get two or nuthin" system. Can you imagine what difference that might make in third period play? And if a game did get to a 4 on 4 OT period it would be crazy.

I like the 4 on 4 actually as it can have some very good flow to it, but I think 5 minutes is redicuously short.

Overall I agree with your feelings on it, reward teams for winning by playing hockey and don't reward teams for doing enough to keep the game even into OT but then not win. What's that all aboot? You should only get points for winning, you shouldn't get points for losing no matter when you lost you LOST. No points.

Well, being old school, heck "real" old school, (started watching the NHL religiously in the late 50's) and also a purist, I'd like to see it the way it was. No overtime in the regular season, and definitely get rid of the shoot-out.

2 points for a W
1 point for a T
0 points for a L


I think most of us agree that Mr. Betteman does a terrible job of trying to market the NHL, and his gimmicks such as the shoot-out and now the "3" points for a regulation win are not those a true hockey man would make.

The first and foremost thing the NHL needs is a Commisioner that actually knows something about hockey and spent the better part of his life playing/coaching/managing or some other capacity.


I can think of plenty of names that would do a pretty good job, such as Gretzky, Yzerman (although i think he needs to spend a couple years in management first), Scotty Bowman if he was 10 years younger, and the list could go on and on.

Having said that, I do like a lot of the changes that were made after the lockout. The biggest one being the fact that they're actually calling the game by the rules that were always in place. For example clutching and grabbing were always penalties, they were just never called before. The 2 line pass has done a lot to open the game up, I like the suspensions/fines for hitting from behind into the boards and such (although some calls aren't being made).

Funny coming from a pureist huh? I mean we didn't have 2 line passes back in the 50's and 60's....but then we didn't have clutching and grabbing to such an extent either, so we really didn't need the 2 line pass.


Anyway, hockey doesn't have to be complicated and all dressed up with special rules for points earned on the ice, but it sure can get complicated in a hurry when you let a non-hockey man run the show.

good news, the 3-pts system was rejected by the GMs!!

holydogg wrote:good news, the 3-pts system was rejected by the GMs!!

Really good news indeed!

Next step: removing the shootouts...

holydogg wrote:good news, the 3-pts system was rejected by the GMs!!

The NHL folks haven't totally lost their minds yet.