insanity_gallops Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Now this is just a thought that popped into my head while reading the Devils' update on NHL.com. Friesen called division games four-point games, which got me to thinking: wouldn't division games be more exciting if a win really was worth four points to the victor? Just think how much harder teams would battle in division games. It would put a lot more importance on the division games, which has both positives and negatives. The obvious negative I can think of at this moment is that a team could be great against non-conference opponents and only decent against conference enemies, and end up with a low playoff ranking or not make playoffs at all. Just a thought of mine. Your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 me no likey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 One thing about it is the NHL already hands out points like candy. I mean it's a joke, The Rangers have 45 points. Edit: I would prefer and unbalanced schedule, which would increase revenues and kindle rivalries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJayDevil Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 no way cause then all the games will be boring as hell cause they will focus on Defense and not letting the other team get a goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devils744 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 i dont really like the 4 point idea. what the nhl should do is just play more divisional games. the games are usually more intense and the fans are much more into them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge18 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 One thing about it is the NHL already hands out points like candy. I mean it's a joke, The Rangers have 45 points.Edit: I would prefer and unbalanced schedule, which would increase revenues and kindle rivalries. Well the Nhl is being nice enough to get everyone an extra game against all divisional opponents next year, as well as 3 other inter confrence games. So you just play the other confrence 7 less times a year now. Which is a start. 4 points for these games im not to sure about. Like has been said earlier there are way to many points being given out as it is. They really need to do away with getting points for OT losses. Those things are making teams like the panthers stay in the playoff hunt which isnt right when they are a sub .500 team tied with a .500 team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risky Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Nah. It's way too complicated as is. We need to find some way to do away with ties as-is. I, personally, think the solution is 20 minutes of overtime. Then you probably only end up with each team having 2 or 3 ties a season. Oh, and a loss is a loss during that time, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 i'd like to see the system change to this: 1 point for a win 0 points for a tie -1 point for a loss INCLUDING overtime losses it would be essentially the same thing, minus the otl thing, but it would be easier to tell how they were doing. a .500 team would have 0. a team above would have a positive rating. a team below would have a negative rating. it wouldn't change much, just make stuff simpler... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias 2662 Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 i'd like to see the system change to this:1 point for a win 0 points for a tie -1 point for a loss INCLUDING overtime losses it would be essentially the same thing, minus the otl thing, but it would be easier to tell how they were doing. a .500 team would have 0. a team above would have a positive rating. a team below would have a negative rating. it wouldn't change much, just make stuff simpler... If I may quote 'Me no likey" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z-Man Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 I'd love to see more divisional games. You can cut back on the schedule in alot of other places. Do we really need 4 games against each team in the Southeast or Northeast? I'd rather see 7 Devils/Flyers games and 2 Devils/Thrashers games rather than 5 and 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 i'd like to see the system change to this:1 point for a win 0 points for a tie -1 point for a loss INCLUDING overtime losses it would be essentially the same thing, minus the otl thing, but it would be easier to tell how they were doing. a .500 team would have 0. a team above would have a positive rating. a team below would have a negative rating. it wouldn't change much, just make stuff simpler... If I may quote 'Me no likey" just curious, but why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBT Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 The SBT likes things the way they are. Giving out points for ties results in more exciting races down the stretch run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unibrow Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Do people really want to see more of the same teams? I don't. You get a far less complete picture of how your team stacks up against the rest of the league, and you get lopsided divisional games between teams. For instance, is it really fair if ANYONE gets to play Nashville 7 times a year and get points for it? Meanwhile someone else has to play Ottawa 7 times? You don't get the best 8 at the end of the season that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 While we're making radical suggestions, here's mine: Three for a regulation win, two for an OT win, one for an OT loss. That way you give teams a little more incentive to go for a win in regulation AND keep the firewagon OT play the NHL wants, while not giving teams as much credit for going to OT and getting the win in the 4-on-4 lottery as they would getting a regulation 60-minute win. Actually I wouldn't mind the way it was though with the points system. I do think points for OT losses is silly, no other sport rewards losses. But I can understand the NHL wants to make the ends of its games more exciting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 unibrow: Do people really want to see more of the same teams? I don't. You get a far less complete picture of how your team stacks up against the rest of the league, and you get lopsided divisional games between teams. For instance, is it really fair if ANYONE gets to play Nashville 7 times a year and get points for it? Meanwhile someone else has to play Ottawa 7 times? You don't get the best 8 at the end of the season that way. The only way you'll ever get a totally fair strength of schedule system is to have each team play every other team twice a year and shorten the season to 60 games. Since that won't be done, I'm in favor of more division games, especially since they're more fun and they sell more tickets. Yeah some teams will get more of an advantage from playing other teams, but in a few years things will change and other teams will get more of an advantage. It balances out eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GA Devil Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 The reason a team gets a point for an overtime loss is 'cos OT is a totally different game than regulation. The people in the front office know it would be a monumental error to deprive the losing team of a point just because they lost due to a gimmick trying to generate "excitement." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarDew Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 The reason a team gets a point for an overtime loss is 'cos OT is a totally different game than regulation. The people in the front office know it would be a monumental error to deprive the losing team of a point just because they lost due to a gimmick trying to generate "excitement." This OT 4 on 4 is a gimmick that I have no use for...I would prefer the system of 5 min OT with 5 on 5...at the end if still tied both teams get a point...if one loses well that team gets nada and the winning team gets the 2...pretty soon the rules &/or gimmicks will overcome the sport and few will remember what real hockey was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 StarDew, the whole idea of the 4-on-4 and awarding each team a point was to encourage nothing-to-lose hockey in overtime. Hasn't this been achieved? Don't you remember how boring OTs used to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarDew Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 StarDew, the whole idea of the 4-on-4 and awarding each team a point was to encourage nothing-to-lose hockey in overtime. Hasn't this been achieved? Don't you remember how boring OTs used to be? Nothing to lose hockey???????????? Sorry but when there is competition there is a winner and a loser or a dead heat imo...nothing to lose is an achievement???? No, this whole 4 on 4 is bogus...I don't think OT's used to be boring because they had to fight for something...to at least retain a point...they all had to run the risk of losing a point...in today's format there is no risk...a junk yard team could acquire 80+pts in a season and never win a friggin game That is nuts...what I will remember is watching how the splendor of the sport has gone down the crapper in order to try and make it attractive for folks who couldn't follow the sport if it was run in slo-mo....case in point...the glowing puck...sorry but I bet a lot of folks have no idea how the game used to be played...the good ole days are gone but not forgotten here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 i'm going to have to STRONGLY agree with stardew here... say we got 56 points in the standings and philly's got 57. we play them and it goes into ot. if we win, we're still only going to be tied with them! that's dumb. if it was win or nada we'd pull a point ahead... that's big! that's excitement! "nothing to lose" 4 on 4 is dumb because YOU'VE ALREADY WON SOMETHING. getting 2 over a division leader's 0 is much more monumental... there you really have something to win. i could deal with it still being 4 on 4, but the otl point is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 how the standings would be today under my scoring system: it goes Wins Losses Ties Points (otl count as losses) Eastern Conference A T L A N T I C Philadelphia 24 12 8 +12 New Jersey 25 15 3 +10 NY Islanders 20 20 5 0 Pittsburgh 19 23 3 -4 NY Rangers 19 23 6 -4 N O R T H E A S T Ottawa 29 11 5 +18 Toronto 23 18 4 +5 Boston 22 18 4 +4 Montreal 18 23 5 -5 Buffalo 13 25 6 -12 S O U T H E A S T Washington 21 19 5 +2 Tampa Bay 18 20 6 -2 Carolina 16 23 6 -7 Florida 13 23 9 -10 (notice carolina would be ahead of florida... no otl points would certainly make florida work harder in ot!!!) Atlanta 13 29 2 -16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIDevsFan1 Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 I'm kina' old school (been watching hockey since the 70s). I gotta be honest, though, I like the pace of 4-on4. 4-on4s and OTLs are gimmicky, no doubt but its more exciting to watch. So in the end I have mixed feelings about it. I would rather see a larger European style rink so the game can have more of a 4-on4 look and feel. This will get more casual fans interested without ruining the "integrity" of the game by adding gimmicks. Take out some seats for the larger size and you have more sellouts. See, I just cured all the NHLs problems in three sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 I'm more in favor of make regulation wins 3 points. OT wins 2 points. Ties 1 point. OT losses 1 point. This way the 3 points issued for a regulation win equals the number available in OT. Even though I've been following the sport for some 40+ years, I'm not adverse to the idea of a shootout to eliminate ties altogether. (just because one is older, that does not automatically make them a curmudgeon!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerrydevil Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 Well, I like the 4-on-4 because many more games are being decided and even when games end in a tie, there's usually lots of chances. It's fun to watch. Anything, within reason, to give the game some juice during the regular season is OK in my book. Because the game needs more excitement in the regular season. I like Rock's idea, by the way, it makes sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 17, 2003 Share Posted January 17, 2003 The 4 on 4 is a great invention and should be kept. Along with the OT loss system. It rewards being entertaining and makes for a great finish to every game. In intraconference games, it encourages teams to go for it in the last minutes to prevent the other team from possibly getting that 'gimme' point.. and in interconference games, it makes teams go all out to win in overtime. Yes, the standings don't always work out, but this is an 82 game season. Whoever's in the playoffs belongs in and whoever's out belongs out, even if it is "because of" OT wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.