NHL needs 3-point-win system

[Rock]

Two points to boredom

NHL needs 3-point-win system

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2005/...126309-sun.html

By AL STRACHAN -- Toronto Sun

T.O. joins list of possible draft sites

Al Strachan writes that the NHL needs to award three points for a win in regulation time, or then the other proposed rule changes to the game will become a moot point. (AP File Photo/Bill Kostroun)

In recent years, the National Hockey League had appeared to be inching gradually toward three-point games.

But now, there is a strong likelihood of a return to two-pointers. And nothing else.

When the NHL finally gets back to work, it will institute a number of rule changes, not the least of which will be shootouts to settle games that remain tied after overtime.

That sounds simple enough. Fans tend to like shootouts and dislike ties, so in commissioner Gary Bettman's Brave New Game, shootouts will come to pass.

But how do you then reward a team for winning a shootout?

One solution seemed to make a lot of sense. Award three points for a win in regulation time. If the game is tied after 60 minutes, then award two points for a win at the end of the night, whether it comes in overtime or a shootout. The losing team gets a one-point reward for having stayed tied through regulation time.

For one thing, that approach would have the advantage of consistency. In every game, three points would be available. How the two teams allot those three points is up to them.

Last year, three points were shared if the game went into overtime, but only two if a team had a lead after 60 minutes.

But the even greater advantage of the three-point-win system is that it encourages coaches to play to win. Right now, too many coaches play not to lose and as a result, a large percentage of NHL games are mind-numbingly boring.

It's such an eminently sensible solution that it should come as no surprise that the NHL is leaning toward rejecting it.

Although Bettman once favoured the three-point concept, sources say he now is leaning strongly toward a two-or-nothing approach.

The winning team will get two points and the loser gets none. That's all. No exceptions.

Granted, that system addresses the concerns over consistency. And it eliminates tie games. But it does absolutely nothing to encourage coaches to open up the game in regulation time. Quite the contrary.

It will even kill the excitement that fans had come to expect from the five minutes of four-on-four overtime.

The overtime periods are a great spectacle because each team knows that it already has earned a point and can now earn another. One point is in the bank.

But if teams are in a position to lose that point, they'll play the overtime the way they played the rest of the game -- defence first and take no chances.

If you look at the weaker teams in the league -- the ones that try to compensate for a lack of talent by stressing defence -- they often have good goaltending.

So here's what will happen under the two-point-must system. Weaker teams will focus on shutting down the opposition. If they can hang on until overtime, they'll do more of the same because if they can't match the opposition's skill at full strength, they definitely can't match it four-on-four.

So they'll grind their way through overtime in the hope that their goalie can steal two points in the shootout.

Bettman reportedly favours this concept over the three-point system because of the game's heritage. A three-point win would skew the records.

But this is a game in need of major change. The kind of people who are concerned about hockey's records are hockey's hard core. They're smart enough to realize that the points accumulated by the 1975-76 Montreal Canadiens cannot be directly compared to the performance of a 2006 team earning three points for a win.

The league is planning a number of major rule changes in the hope of winning back its fans once the owners end their lockout.

But if it also adopts a two-point-must system, those changes are a waste of time. If the coaches still are playing not to lose, none of those changes will matter in the least.

[Don]

Uhm. Two points or nothing is stupid. Just print a win-loss column like baseball. I like all or nothing. Forces you to play to win. Just giving two points for a win is silly if there are no more 1 points.

[DevilMinder]

I agree Don, and I hope the consensus becomes that in the NHL circles also. They always talk about coaches with their W-L record anyway, why not extend that to the teams.

[NJD Jester]

"If you look at the weaker teams in the league -- the ones that try to compensate for a lack of talent by stressing defence -- they often have good goaltending."

Who are these teams that have no talent, but have great goaltending? The '96 Panthers? Shoot, even they had a few players I'd say were better than average. Is he talking about Nashville, with Walker and Legwand? Or the Ducks maybe? Who the hell knows...

As for the point system, the NHL has to do something to make a regulation win worth more than an OT win. That's been a problem for decades. So maybe two or a regulation win, one for an OT win and then nothing for a loser works on that end.

If ties are truly the bane of the NHL's existence, then you can't go around rewarding losing teams, because that's the same kind of "everyone's a winner" bullsh!t that ties also provide. If you hate ties, that is.

My favorite part of the article is when Al praises the 4-on-4 OT format for its excitement factor. I guess the fans hate that format, because all you hear from these blowhards is about how badly the fans want a shootout. Seems to me most fans would prefer a longer 4-on-4 OT than a shootout tie-breaker.

<JESTER>

[Get Real]

The three point system described isn't that bad. The emphasis will be to win during the 60 minutes. However is tied there is incentive to play hard for a OT win or shoot out for 2 points. The different between win and lose will be significant it will turn on offense. Getting a point for a regular game tie will force teams to play offense. More excitement more fans.

[DevilMinder]

We had the OTL point system last season. I seem to recall most teams playing conservative anyway GR. I can only think of two or three games where an extra point was needed and the teams played hard.

[Devils731]

I would prefer 3 points to the current system. All games should be worth the same value, there shouldn't be some games worth 2 total points and some worth 3, thats just stupid, IMO. I also wouldn't mind just going wins and losses but all games should carry the same inherent worth.

[LizDevil30]

If they're eliminating ties there's no reason to not just go to W/L.

Edit: The NHL needs to remember - after childhood sports - winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Edited July 11, 2005 by LizDevil30

[Don]

I say make a win worth 10 points and a loss worth 0. Nothing in between.

[DevilMinder]

Hell make it 100 points for a win and 1 point for a loss. Everyone is a winner, and the first person to two wins can claim the first 200 point season on record! That will get the fans back, imagine that headline. The New Jersey Devils are the first team to hit the 6,020 point mark!

Edited July 11, 2005 by DevilMinder

[Swede]

why stop there let every goal be worth 2 except the goals from the blue line that would be worth 3... imagine, scoring would be doubled instantly

[Get Real]

DM, we did have an OT point system last season played but with a 3 point system the differential between 3 and 1 or 0 points will have a major effect against the weaker offensive team. It will force offense and cause a team not to settle for a tie at end of regulation game time. Then in the OT and shootout if both are necessary there will be an offense greater than under previous system. Just my opinion.

I seriously think that the NHL must get offense into the games of the fan fallout will continue for the not so strong team attendance teams. This will have an effect on the NHL. That's why the NHL wants major city team to become interesting like the Rangers, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and LA. It's about fans in the seats for games on a consistent basis regardless of who the home team is playing. Example that is close to home the Devils sell outs are when the Ranger, Flyer and Islander fans come to see their team play in NJ. That's a function of location and closeness and support their team.

Fans in the seats each and every game is a must for the NHL to be successful.

[sundstrom]

what i disagree with is the concept that a win in regulation is different than an OT win or a shootout win (or more acurrately, that you should get points for playing good, just not good enough).

it's nonsense.

add shoot-outs. 2 points for any type of win. 0 points for any type of loss. Ties go away.

shoot-outs will come after some sort of extended OT with less than 5 on 5 hockey. you're not gonna see teams try to play for the shootout.

[BlueSkirt]

We had the OTL point system last season. I seem to recall most teams playing conservative anyway GR. I can only think of two or three games where an extra point was needed and the teams played hard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before 4-on-4, it was something like 66% of games remained tied after OT.

The 4-on-4 initially reduced the percentage to like 40%, bet then it drifted back into the 50% range.

So there is mixed results on proving that awarding the point for a tie at the end of Reg really had an effect on a goal being scored in OT. However, I think it is safe to say that the OT was more exciting that the 5-on-5 without a point in the bank method.

Again, go to simple Win/Loss records.

In every other sport you don't get anything for securing a tie.

And you get the whole enchilada for winning in OT, regardless of how you do it.

the Loser gets nothing.

That's the way to incentify winning!

[MadDog2020]

My favorite part of the article is when Al praises the 4-on-4 OT format for its excitement factor. I guess the fans hate that format, because all you hear from these blowhards is about how badly the fans want a shootout. Seems to me most fans would prefer a longer 4-on-4 OT than a shootout tie-breaker.

I would have no problem whatsoever if they went to 7 or 8 minutes of 4-on-4. That would be MUCH, MUCH better than a shootout. The blowhards that say the fans want a shootout are talking about the idiot fringe fans the NHL is trying so hard to recruit, because they're CERTAINLY not talking about die-hard tradionalists like me.

[Devils731]

If you don't want ties you have to have shoot-outs. Imagine a game going to 50 minutes of overtime when the team is playing again 3 of the next 4 nights against much fresher teams.

[NJDevs4978]

what i disagree with is the concept that a win in regulation is different than an OT win or a shootout win (or more acurrately, that you should get points for playing good, just not good enough).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It IS different. Because the NHL has made it that way. If overtime was still five-on-five then I'd agree there's no reason to make OT wins worth less than regulationi wins. But it's not, it's a 'different' form of hockey that's played in the OT and shootouts are different altogether. If you gave OT and shootout wins the same value as regulation wins then teams would be playing for OT and the shootout ALL THE TIME.

[Derek21]

The NHL thinks it can attract NEW FANS. What do you expect?

As for this article, I didn't read it. It's a dumb idea.

[sundstrom]

If you gave OT and shootout wins the same value as regulation wins then teams would be playing for OT and the shootout ALL THE TIME.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i'll respectively disagree. why would a team just sit on the puck and not take any chances for 60 minutes only to decide to go for it in the OT? i could understand it if they were guaranteed a point, but in my scenario, they wouldn't.