sabregoats Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 My only problem with the Goal differential system is that it devalues the actual win. Although an interesting concept the goal of any sport is simply to win the game, not take advantage of a weak opponent. Also, we already complain about teams making the playoffs via SO "bonus points", imagine the griping that would go on once it was realized the Sabres were beat out on the playoffs based on one lopsided win by the 8th place team earlier in the season. I also think if you are going to award points based on lopsided wins, you would also need to punish teams for lopsided losses. Meaning, if a team loses 10-1 it shouldn't receive 0 points, rather it should receive -9. If that isn't done we are right back at the asymmetric awarding of points. The reason for using a point system is to allow an easy comparison among teams that all haven't played the same number of games. They can also be used to differentiate among certain types of wins (regulaton/overtime/shoot out). If you are going to award points based on goal differential there might as well not even be a W and L columns, all that would be needed, or looked at, would be the GF/GA columns.
Stoner Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 You finally really did it! You maniacs! You blew it up! ###### you! ###### you all to hell!
cdexchange Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 My only problem with the Goal differential system is that it devalues the actual win. Although an interesting concept the goal of any sport is simply to win the game, not take advantage of a weak opponent. Also, we already complain about teams making the playoffs via SO "bonus points", imagine the griping that would go on once it was realized the Sabres were beat out on the playoffs based on one lopsided win by the 8th place team earlier in the season. I also think if you are going to award points based on lopsided wins, you would also need to punish teams for lopsided losses. Meaning, if a team loses 10-1 it shouldn't receive 0 points, rather it should receive -9. If that isn't done we are right back at the asymmetric awarding of points. The reason for using a point system is to allow an easy comparison among teams that all haven't played the same number of games. They can also be used to differentiate among certain types of wins (regulaton/overtime/shoot out). If you are going to award points based on goal differential there might as well not even be a W and L columns, all that would be needed, or looked at, would be the GF/GA columns. Actually, this is exactly what I had in mind originally but forgot to mention in my original post. The losing team would actually lose points in the standings corresponding to the negative point differential in the game. Upon further reflection, I can only think of one real downside to my idea: the bad teams would probably be out of contention earlier in the season, so their would be less fan interest down the stretch. Then again, maybe the opposite would be true. If you could theoretically earn 5 or 6 points in a given game, teams could make up ground quickly with a couple big wins. Of course none of this will ever happen, but this thread is fun just thinking about different possibilites. :)
cdexchange Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 The reason for using a point system is to allow an easy comparison among teams that all haven't played the same number of games. They can also be used to differentiate among certain types of wins (regulaton/overtime/shoot out). If you are going to award points based on goal differential there might as well not even be a W and L columns, all that would be needed, or looked at, would be the GF/GA columns. Good points.
cdexchange Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 Why not just have lasers rotate different colored circles on the ice during the game and have each circle be a different point value. :doh: Or they could have a giant Wheel Of Fortune the ref could spin right before the opening faceoff, that would decide how many points the game will be worth that night. :lol:
sabregoats Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 Or they could have a giant Wheel Of Fortune the ref could spin right before the opening faceoff, that would decide how many points the game will be worth that night. :lol: Haha. I actually like that. Expand it, to Betman spinning the wheel once a week and all games that week are worth that number of points. You could even have him travel around the country spinning the wheel in a different arena each week.Now that would make for an interesting season.
SwampD Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 Or they could have a giant Wheel Of Fortune the ref could spin right before the opening faceoff, that would decide how many points the game will be worth that night. :lol: The ice is painted white, right? How about painting it black instead, then use an orange puck, the players wear fluorescent colors and use a blacklight to light the arena. Make the nets only 2 by 3 with no netting and no goalies. If there is a goal, the puck just goes through and play continues (like basketball). After a goal, if there is then another goal scored without the puck first clearing the zone, that goal is worth 2. The NHL wants scoring? That would do it. I think it would actually be pretty fun to watch, too. EDIT:They could call it the XHL.
cdexchange Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 EDIT:They could call it the XHL. :lol: ...and Tallinder could change his name to "She Hate Me" :bag:
wjag Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 The 3-2-1 Olympic point system did make it into the USA-Canada broadcast. Doc said there was chatter out there. So I presume, this discussion is being carried out on hockey boards every where and maybe even in hockey boardrooms.
SwampD Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 :lol: ...and Tallinder could change his name to "She Hate Me" :bag: :lol: :thumbsup:
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 I agree with Carp 100%. The NHL system is a joke. You need a set number of available points if you want your product to be taken seriously by logical individuals. This was my reply in another thread: No.....they lost the games. This isn't 1986 where ties meant something. The NHL has a flawed system where there aren't a set number of points available for the taking. There are 2 or 3 points available each game depending on the outcome. If there were, say, collusion between two teams....they could promise to keep the game close and get it to OT, then decide the outcome there. If you could pull that off league wide, you would end up with 123 projected points. Another example of the flawed thinking in the NHL. How would you like to show up at work with a co-worker at the widget plant and your boss says...."OK, here's the deal....whoever produces the most widgets between the two of you today get $200. The other person gets $0. But for some reason when the clock hits 5 and you two have both produced the same amount of widgets, you will each get $100....and the person who makes the most widgets in the next 5 minutes gets another $100 for a total of $200." That system is retarded. It would take the workers all of 2 seconds to figure out they need to slack off and not do anything crazy for the entire day so they can each at least get $100. Then for the last few minutes of the day they decide who gets the extra cash. The person who suffers the most in this scenario is the person paying the salaries. Instead of having 2 guys going balls out all day to outdo each other and producing 100 widgets costing him $200......the guys loaf and end up making 50 widgets between the two and get paid a total of $300. The person paying the salary goes from paying $2 a widget under the first system to paying $6 a widget under the other system. Who do you think suffers in the NHL when this system is used? THE FANS!!!! You guys are supporting a flawed system that encourages safe, boring hockey so both teams have the best shot at as many points as possible. It is a joke. And you wonder why infomercials outdraw the NHL in TV ratings.
MattPie Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 Who do you think suffers in the NHL when this system is used? THE FANS!!!! You guys are supporting a flawed system that encourages safe, boring hockey so both teams have the best shot at as many points as possible. It is a joke. And you wonder why infomercials outdraw the NHL in TV ratings. I really find it hard to believe there is any league-wide collusion to keep the scores tied. It would only work for East-West games, since you wouldn't want to give any points to a conference opponent. So that's 18 games total for the season that it has any likelihood of happening, and as it stands right now, the Bolts have 5 OTL against the west, and that's highest for either conference. Most teams are at 1-3 OTL. I'm not counting OT wins against the other conference since that's not on the standings page. :)
Sabre Dance Posted February 23, 2010 Report Posted February 23, 2010 No.....they lost the games. This isn't 1986 where ties meant something. The NHL has a flawed system where there aren't a set number of points available for the taking. There are 2 or 3 points available each game depending on the outcome. Well....there are actually only two points available for a single team. I will agree that the current system stinks. I've always hated OT in the regular season, and I detest the shoot-outs. I never saw any issue with the old system: a win is two points, a tie is one, a loss is zero.
BillHoppe Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 I do OT should be extended and another player should be taken off the ice.
shrader Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 3-on-3 probably would be entertaining, but it seems a bit too gimmicky to me. Not as gimmicky as the shootout, but still a bit much. I would gladly take continuous 4-on-4, but I think I would settle for 10 minutes instead.
deluca67 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 The only change I want to see to the current OT is the elimination of the extra points. Get rid of the point system all together it's not needed.
BillHoppe Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 The only change I want to see to the current OT is the elimination of the extra points. Get rid of the point system all together it's not needed. I wonder if another five minutes would be hard to bargain. More time means increased risk. The liklihood of getting injured increases.
darksabre Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 The only change I want to see to the current OT is the elimination of the extra points. Get rid of the point system all together it's not needed. I agree, but I think we need to find a way to reward winning the game outside of the shootout, but not eliminate the shoot out, which casual fans seem to like. For us though, we know that many times teams play for the shootout, which defeats the point of OT. I think there should be a points system that rewards winning in OT rather than the shootout, therefore making the OT relevant again. Regulation Win: 2 points OT Win: 2 points Shootout Win: 1 point Losing always = 0 Loser never gets compensation points, and the winner loses point potential if they don't try to win during the OT period.
deluca67 Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 I agree, but I think we need to find a way to reward winning the game outside of the shootout, but not eliminate the shoot out, which casual fans seem to like. For us though, we know that many times teams play for the shootout, which defeats the point of OT. I think there should be a points system that rewards winning in OT rather than the shootout, therefore making the OT relevant again. Regulation Win: 2 points OT Win: 2 points Shootout Win: 1 point Losing always = 0 Loser never gets compensation points, and the winner loses point potential if they don't try to win during the OT period. No. No. No. No. No. The point system is asinine. 1 winner and 1 loser per game. Determine the tie breakers as you must. For gods sake just get rid of the point system.
Two or less Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 I just find it funny that Ken Holland is the loudest in the league to change the rules, and seeing his teams poor over time record, just makes me laugh.
darksabre Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 No. No. No. No. No. The point system is asinine. 1 winner and 1 loser per game. Determine the tie breakers as you must. For gods sake just get rid of the point system. Yes, but if you get rid of the points system then we're constantly stuck with teams playing for the shootout once they get to OT. If they don't change the OT format, then they need to change what it's worth, which is where the points system matters. And for the record, I have no problem with the points system.
Kristian Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 The only change I want to see to the current OT is the elimination of the extra points. Get rid of the point system all together it's not needed. Do it like they did at the worlds - 3 points for a win, 2 points for an OT win, 1 point for an OT loss. No extra point in play.
SwampD Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 No changes. It's fine. Get over the extra point. It's just not a big deal. If you don't like losing shootouts, then win some.
nfreeman Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 No changes. It's fine. Get over the extra point. It's just not a big deal. If you don't like losing shootouts, then win some. Well said.
shrader Posted June 8, 2010 Report Posted June 8, 2010 No changes. It's fine. Get over the extra point. It's just not a big deal. If you don't like losing shootouts, then win some. It has little to do with whether or not you like losing shootouts though. That five minutes of 4-on-4 is some of the most entertaining hockey you see all year. Much like the typical Inkman-Spndnchz encounter, it's over before it even starts. We need more of that (the hockey, not the other thing).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.