i like the 98-99 and prior system. ties are fine with me. ya play hard, no one comes out on top, so be it. however, i understand why people would hate them.

_________________

You don't even need a point system anymore if you're not giving out loser points.

A win is a win. Loss is a loss. Standings based on a win loss record. Done.

Hmm yeah, pretty much.

_________________
mechaphil

They won't ever do that, but it would be nice.

I'd also be in favor of a 3/2/1 system. Every game has to have the same value. Right now that's not the case.

Don't suggest the 3/2/1 system to old folks, they'd shit their prune juice at the thought of adopting a Euro system of points.

(I also like the idea of a 3/2/1 system. I look forward to it every WJC and WC)

_________________
mechaphil

I wouldn't mind a 2-1-0 system. 3-2-1 seems to unnecessarily inflate point totals.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

2-1-0 creates the same problem that you have now that games are not worth the same amount of points. That really shouldn't happen ever.If you must go points, the 3-2-1 system covers all the bases that you want.

3 points for a regulation win. You've beat your opponent in the allotted time, and receive all points for that contest.
2 points for an OT/SO win. You've beat your opponent, but needed extra time (or the skills competition) to do it. You get more of the available points, but not all of them,
1 point for an OT/SO loss. You lost the game, but played well enough to have the game tied in regulation, and either lost in OT or the skills competition.

Another modified version incentivizes teams for avoiding the shootout.

3 points for a regulation OR OT win.
2 points for a SO win.
1 point for a SO loss.

This method doesn't give a team a loser point just to hang on an make it to OT, but gives them credit for at least having it tied through OT. It recognizes the fact that the SO is a skills competition, and doesn't reward a team just for being good at shootouts.

It may inflate the point totals, but the shootout has already done that. It doesn't matter as long as each game distributes 3 points.

i think, realistically, you gotta go with a winning percentage if you go with a shoot out. i dont like the idea of a winning team getting less points because it took longer to get the win, and a point to the loser for a consolation prize.

_________________

Also known as every IIHF game. And the losers are already getting consolation points now.

It opens up the game because teams want to go for that regulation win.

a wins a wins a wins a win. no matter how ya slice it. if you offer the opportunity to achieve more points in over time? make it a full win. same with a shootout. just my opinion.

if it was up to me, it would be 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie. love me some ties.

_________________

I already said that I advocate W-L only, no points needed. That will never fly because hockey purists will never accept it.

Fuck ties. Getting rid of them was the best thing the NHL ever did.

hey, i just gave my opinions. i liked ties. theyll never come back, but i liked em.

_________________

Shootouts are stupid, but they're better than ties. I agree with most people that the 3 point games should be stopped.

_________________
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Hockey Night in Buffalo

the best solution in my opinion
3 points for a win
2 points for a OT SO win
1 point for a OT SO loss

every game is worth 3 points. in addition teams must win in 60 min to get the maximum (3 points) - more action

_________________
HOCKEY IS BACK!

I don't know that there really is a perfect system. There will always be disadvantages, and every once in a while, an undeserving team that manages to take advantage of them. A strict win-loss system is probably best though.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

I'd be up for the win-loss system. Works in every other sport.

You could make wins and ot wins the same weight, then make a SO win something different to make them not as important.

Or have them all different weights like OT wins count as 3/4th and SO count as 1/2, but that would probably be way confusing to do.

A pure win/loss system would work.

_________________

a win is a win is a win

anything, points or the system that you propose would cheapen a win.


If two good teams are playing, and it takes until OT for a win, then it is the same win as if they won in 60

_________________
PSA: I am an overly sarcastic person. If you take me at my word, then i will most likely anger and offend you.

The one downside I see to a win-loss system is a team with a lot of up and down games making the playoffs over a team with slightly fewer wins and a lot of close losses missing out. You can say that the ultimate meter of a team is whether or not it can win, but is a team that either wins 4-1 or loses 4-1 better than a team that is competitive every night and has a lot of one goal losses? I kind of think you want to reward the team that's busting their ass every game.

Maybe it doesn't matter at all since I think that aside from rare exceptions, the teams in the playoffs are the ones that deserve to be there.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

might as well just go with a winning percentage like the other 3 major sports.

_________________

And when you get into the playoffs, you don't care how many points you can get for a win, you only care to get those 16 wins needed to hoist the cup.

So, make it a win-loss system/win percentage and see how that changes things.

Honestly, we should go back and see how that could affect the outcomes of the standings at the end.

_________________