Nhl Points System

[Guest Wayne]

I noticed the World Championship is using a different Points system than the NHL... and since some don't like the extra point for a non-regulation loss the NHL currently uses... what's your preference?...

my first attempt at starting a Poll, hope this works

[Guest CanadianMike]

you win= 2 points

you lose- 0 points

...but they would have to bring by the 1 point =tie.

not gonna happen, but I like the "old" system.

[Guest AlexOscar]

Yeah, the old system. 2 points for a regular time win, 5 minute extra time, if tied 1 points each. No sorry pity points for the loser. I've never liked that. But I agree, there is no going back to that.

[Guest JL]

I'm against allowing points for losing games. I'm also against allowing points for skills competition. I'd rather see 5 minutes 4 on 4 OT followed by 5 minutes 3 on 3 OT if still tied. Give two points to the winner, regulation or OT and if they can't score after all of that, give them both their one point for tie.

[Guest Eye_Heart_Gorges26]

if you lose, you lose. you shouldn't be awarded any points for such.

[AK-1]

NHL is the only professional sport that gives out points for losing

[Guest noob616]

IMO you win you win ya lose ya lose no freebie points.

[Dutch]

Reg. win 2pts

OT/SO win 1pt

Losing in Reg/OT/SO 0pts

[In-Bob-We-Trust]

IMO you win you win ya lose ya lose no freebie points.

I agree with you, IMHO i think the NHL should use the Win % format used by, the NFL, MLB and NBA, that way teams who deserve to get in, get in. I know it looks biased on my part because the Habs would have made it under that system, but ive been telling my friends all season that losing in OT does not merit a point, its letting teams coast into OT knowing that they can grab a point, making third period hockey, tres boring IMO.

[Guest NWT_Habs_Fan]

Win two points overtime win 1 point, any loss no points

[Guest spankydriscoll]

i have no idea what kind of idiot came up with the current set of rules...

2pts ftw, 0 for the hosers.

[Guest Eye_Heart_Gorges26]

I agree with you, IMHO i think the NHL should use the Win % format used by, the NFL, MLB and NBA, that way teams who deserve to get in, get in. I know it looks biased on my part because the Habs would have made it under that system, but ive been telling my friends all season that losing in OT does not merit a point, its letting teams coast into OT knowing that they can grab a point, making third period hockey, tres boring IMO.

That's how the Ducks got in. Most of their points came from going into OT.

[AK-1]

That's how the Ducks got in. Most of their points came from going into OT.

With their 48 wins, i think the Ducks would have made it to the playoffs.

[Guest Eye_Heart_Gorges26]

With their 48 wins, i think the Ducks would have made it to the playoffs.

okay well thats how they got to be the top in the pacific then. Because the Sharks had more wins then they did. If the Ducks hadn't gone into OT so many times, the Sharks woulda had the pacific divison.

[Guest Wayne]

I agree with you, IMHO i think the NHL should use the Win % format used by, the NFL, MLB and NBA, that way teams who deserve to get in, get in. I know it looks biased on my part because the Habs would have made it under that system, but ive been telling my friends all season that losing in OT does not merit a point, its letting teams coast into OT knowing that they can grab a point, making third period hockey, tres boring IMO.

not that I necessarily agree with it, but I think the argument for giving the point for an OT/SO loss can be made that the NHL is the only sport that changes the rules to ensure a winner after regulation because unlimited extra play is impractical...

MLB and the NBA play until the tie is broken, no matter how long it takes, using the exact same rules as regulation time/innings (though the NBA uses 5-min periods in OT instead of the usual 12)... the NFL plays only one extra 15-min period using the same Rules as regulation and then it's a tie, but it's extremely rare that the tie isn't broken...

the NHL on the other hand, goes immediately to 4-on-4 for OT then the SO... the 4-on-4 is an artificial situation to begin with -- bizarre that a penalty results in the other team getting to use an EXTRA player instead of costing the team a man -- and of course, the SO is a skills competition... is it fair that a TEAM should lose because of an individual competition?...

I personally don't like the idea of going to a 3-on-3 -- the fewer players on the ice, the more it resembles a pick-up or Young Guns All-Star game... maybe the only thing worse than 3-on-3 is 4-on-4, or even 5-on-5, but without goalies!

I'm torn -- I'm like the more 'extreme' traditionalists here, I don't mind the 1 point each for a tie after the OT, but I also have to admit the SO is pure entertainment... but since the SO is here to stay, this particular point is moot...

[Guest Garthy18]

there was nothing wrong with the old system where the loser got nothing even in OT. Winning in OT currently is a watered down win because you hand the opposing team just one point less than you.

[Guest Lafleurfan2]

This is How I feel first off I don't like shootouts But since they wont get rid of it here's what each team should

get. In regulation 2 points for the winner 0 for the looser in overtime the winner gets 2 points the looser gets 0

in the shootout the winner gets 2 points and the looser gets 1 point. Yeh our sport is the only sport that gets points for loosing and our sport is the only sport in which a last playoff spot is rewarded to a team with less

wins. It would be nice if a game is tied 4-4 to play a full over time possesion if it's still tied then a 5 minute

extra period then if it's still tied the shoot out.

I understand what you people are saying that a win is a win and a loss is a loss it's not fair to the winner

they get 2 the looser gets 1 point. and some people feel as though that no team should get any points. 0 points for the looser because after all they lost and a loss is a loss.

some people feel there should be no freebie points.

let's look at a game situation let's say that we are playing New Jersey at there new arena let's

say the game is tied 4-4 it stays 4-4 after the 5 minute extra period now let's say that nobody sighns

Scott Gomez and he stays in New Jersey in the shoot out he ends up scoring the winning goal. Don't you think

for us getting the game to a shoot out we should be awarded 1 point? this is certainly an intresting topic.

Now on another situation were playing Toronto the game is tied 3-3 going into over time Now and Alexi Kovalev

scores into the first two minutes of ot and we win 4-3 we should be awarded 2 points and Toronto 0 points because it ended early. if Toronto had gotten it to a shoot out then they should be awarded 1 point for the tough

effort. This is how I feel.

[Guest smoke]

What do you guys think of the point system

2 points for a win

1 point for losing in ot/ so

After looking @ tonight scores. there was 4 games played,

8 teams total, out of 8 of those teams 7 of them received points by either winning or bringing the game in ot.

I dont think its fair,

Should be 3-1 maybe, or 2-0

2 games of losing in ot shouldnt count the same as 1 win?

Just my 2 cents.

[roy_133]

The point system is a total joke imo, I hate it.

For those who are baseball fans, imagine if the MLB awarded 1 game for winning in extra innings and a .5 game for losing in extra innings, it's crazy, and you can ask the same about any sport.

It just doesn't make sense, down the stretch drive last year nothing annoyed me more then seeing teams LOSE games, yet still gain ground.

I like having a winner, and a loser... Not a winner and kind of a winner.

It's like when you're a kid and you play sports, 1 point for participation! Everyone wins!

[Guest Miltie01]

The point system is a total joke imo, I hate it.

For those who are baseball fans, imagine if the MLB awarded 1 game for winning in extra innings and a .5 game for losing in extra innings, it's crazy, and you can ask the same about any sport.

It just doesn't make sense, down the stretch drive last year nothing annoyed me more then seeing teams LOSE games, yet still gain ground.

I like having a winner, and a loser... Not a winner and kind of a winner.

It's like when you're a kid and you play sports, 1 point for participation! Everyone wins!

Absolutely agree !!!

No points for losers !!!

[tmash]

The point system is a total joke imo, I hate it.

For those who are baseball fans, imagine if the MLB awarded 1 game for winning in extra innings and a .5 game for losing in extra innings, it's crazy, and you can ask the same about any sport.

It just doesn't make sense, down the stretch drive last year nothing annoyed me more then seeing teams LOSE games, yet still gain ground.

I like having a winner, and a loser... Not a winner and kind of a winner.

It's like when you're a kid and you play sports, 1 point for participation! Everyone wins!

I can kind of see the merit though in not wanting teams to just sit back and play defensively to get the point. And especially with the shootout now, it is really ridiculous to have the full 2 points on the line in a skills competition.

But, the thing that has always bugged me is that you have games where 2 poitns are handed out and games with 3 points handed out. Nothing annoyed me more than seeing two teams around us in the standings right before the playoffs playing each other and then taking the game to overtime so 3 points was given between them (it wasn't so bad before the shootout, because there was a decent possibility neither team would get the 2 points - but now a game goes to OT and it's guaranteed 3 points between them). I'd change it to 3 for a win, 2 for OT win, and 1 for OT loss.

[Guest js2]

Last season made me angry because we had 42 wins on the season while the Leafs and Islanders had something like 39-40 wins and yet they were ahead of us in the standings.

It doesn't make sense!!

[Guest Blockoman]

Why is the 1 point awarded in the first place? Because it used to be reserved for games that ended in ties after overtime was done. The old rule was that any team that lost in OT recieved 0 points, like losing in extra innings in baseball. Even when the overtime loss point was added, it was still bearable because a tie game was always a possibility.

Nowadays, with the shootout, there is no such thing as a tie hockey game. Why is the single point still given out? Is the fact that teams play 60 minutes of hockey enough to merit a point for "thanks for trying, but hard luck?" Give the teams that actually win a fair chance instead of a team slipping by with fewer wins and more OT/SO losses.

If the OT point didn't exist last season, the Habs and Rangers would have been tied for 7th place in the East, resulting in us in and the Islanders, with their two fewer wins and six more OT losses, out. The Rangers won the season series, so the Habs would be placed eighth, mind you.

[Guest Miltie01]

Go back to no OT, therefore no SO

2 pts for a win. 0 pts for a loss and split in a tie....all in a sixty minute game.

Hockey is fun to watch weather it is a barn burner or a defensive battle.

There is a beauty in the struggle if you know the game.

[tmash]

Why is the 1 point awarded in the first place? Because it used to be reserved for games that ended in ties after overtime was done. The old rule was that any team that lost in OT recieved 0 points, like losing in extra innings in baseball. Even when the overtime loss point was added, it was still bearable because a tie game was always a possibility.

Nowadays, with the shootout, there is no such thing as a tie hockey game. Why is the single point still given out? Is the fact that teams play 60 minutes of hockey enough to merit a point for "thanks for trying, but hard luck?" Give the teams that actually win a fair chance instead of a team slipping by with fewer wins and more OT/SO losses.

If the OT point didn't exist last season, the Habs and Rangers would have been tied for 7th place in the East, resulting in us in and the Islanders, with their two fewer wins and six more OT losses, out. The Rangers won the season series, so the Habs would be placed eighth, mind you.

But the idea of potentially having the difference between 2 and 0 points based on a skills competition is ridiculous.

There's a lot I like about European hockey, deciding games with a shootout isn't one of them.