Out of the GM meetings, they're proposing that the first standings tiebreaker be changed to regulation and shootout wins instead of overall wins.

Minor change, but I think a good one. Puts a little more emphasis on winning before the shootout. I'd still like to see a 3 point system in place, but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

BRING BACK THE TWO POINT SYSTEM!

_________________

The Three points for a win, 2 points for an OT/SO win, and 1 for OT/SO loss and none for regulation loss would work for me.

The IIHF and Soccer use it and it works fine. And Mike, HELL NO TO TIES!!!!!!!!

_________________

id rather have ties then weird point systems.

ties never bugged me. yeah, i wanted a win, but a tie? nothing wrong with bringing home a point.

_________________

If its not a monkey knife fight, I don't want to hear it.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

I like the system how it is, sort. You either stick to two points for wins, and get rid of the OT/SO loss point and go to 0 points for a loss instead.

The way it is now offers much better playoff races since more teams are closer to it than before. I think the 3 point system could work in the NHL.

_________________

The 3/2/1 system is far from weird. It's quite common in international hockey, and soccer for that matter.

It incentivizes teams to go after it in regulations, tends to reduce the common turtling to get a point.

Right now the NHL still wants to artificially compress the standings in order to keep more teams in the playoff hunt at the end of the season, so fans keep paying for tickets. That's why they came up with the loser point. As further proof, under the old 2-1-0 system, the OT winner got two points while the OT loser got zero. Now even the OT loser gets a point, let alone the SO loser.

I would suggest a compromise by going back to the OT loser getting zero points, but still get a loser point for a SO loss. The problem with that is too many OT games go to the SO, so too many loser points would be handed out.

If it were up to me (if only something, anything, was actually up to me) I would go back to the 2-1-0 system, but extend the 4-on-4 OT to ten minutes. Time wise it wouldn't add any time to the game, because the SO session takes a break, cleans the ice, and then another few minutes to complete. Playing wise it wouldn't be too much harder because 4-on-4 play isn't very physical. Many more games would be decided in OT with the winner getting two points and the loser getting zero. The added time would force teams to play hard because the odds of getting scored on are better. It would also be a rare ten minutes of free flowing hockey that allow the "star" players to shine.

If that's not going to happen, the next best option is 3 pts for the regulation winner and zero for the loser, 2 pts for the OT/SO winner and 1 pt for the loser. There would be a bunch of traditionalists that would cringe at the idea, but it's more fair than artificially adding pts to the standings.

One way or the other, all games need to be worth the same point value - either two or three, but not some games two and some games (OT/SO) worth three. It's just not fair or logical, but fair and logical doesn't put extra dollars in the owners pockets.