shrader Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 A loss in OT used to be a Loss, 0 pts. Florida has 7 points for losing in 62 minutes instead of 58. It is what it is. All the teams play under the same exact system, so you will never hear any of them complain.
LastPommerFan Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 It is what it is. All the teams play under the same exact system, so you will never hear any of them complain. Ken Holland complained.
shrader Posted April 4, 2012 Report Posted April 4, 2012 Ken Holland complained. Which seems a bit short-sighted to me since his team is where they are in relation to Nashville and Chicago thanks to their 8 shootout wins. Go back to the old system from 2005 and all of a sudden Detroit's got 8 less points and would actually be behind Chicago.
Eleven Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 It is a little nuts when you think that, theoretically, a team with 68 losses can make it in, as long as those losses are after the third horn. Theoretically. In real life, the SO is stupid, and so is the 4-on-4. EIther play OT or don't; we can deal with ties.
FolignosJock Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 It is a little nuts when you think that, theoretically, a team with 68 losses can make it in, as long as those losses are after the third horn. Theoretically. In real life, the SO is stupid, and so is the 4-on-4. EIther play OT or don't; we can deal with ties. I really dont wanna deal with ties
Weave Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 I really dont wanna deal with ties Me either. I am more convinced than ever that after 60 minutes and a 5 minute overtime if noone has won the game then no points should get handed out.
shrader Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Me either. I am more convinced than ever that after 60 minutes and a 5 minute overtime if noone has won the game then no points should get handed out. Now there's an interesting one. Personally, I don't agree with it, but I'd love to see how the standings would look with that change. Yeah, they'd play the games differently under those rules, but it would still be interesting to see those standings. My main problem with it though is that you could never sell that to the fans. Those ties are going to happen, they cannot be avoided. Now try to imagine sending the fans home knowing that the game they just paid all that money to see means absolutely nothing. At least for the average Blue Jackets home game, the visiting team might be in the playoff race.
TheMadCap Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Now there's an interesting one. Personally, I don't agree with it, but I'd love to see how the standings would look with that change. Yeah, they'd play the games differently under those rules, but it would still be interesting to see those standings. My main problem with it though is that you could never sell that to the fans. Those ties are going to happen, they cannot be avoided. Now try to imagine sending the fans home knowing that the game they just paid all that money to see means absolutely nothing. At least for the average Blue Jackets home game, the visiting team might be in the playoff race. Great point! I suppose I would rather have the SO than this. I wonder if they can just extend OT to 10 minutes, do you think this would be an improvement? My feeling is anything that avoids both a tie and a SO is a win, and there is a much better chance of a goal happening within 10 mintues rather than 5...
darksabre Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Oddly enough, ROW actually seems to be the best solution.
Weave Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Now there's an interesting one. Personally, I don't agree with it, but I'd love to see how the standings would look with that change. Yeah, they'd play the games differently under those rules, but it would still be interesting to see those standings. My main problem with it though is that you could never sell that to the fans. Those ties are going to happen, they cannot be avoided. Now try to imagine sending the fans home knowing that the game they just paid all that money to see means absolutely nothing. At least for the average Blue Jackets home game, the visiting team might be in the playoff race. IMO a game ending in a tie has no less meaning than a game that ends for a loss for my team. But that's just me.
shrader Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 IMO a game ending in a tie has no less meaning than a game that ends for a loss for my team. But that's just me. I meant in the standings, but you had to have known that, right?
Weave Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 I meant in the standings, but you had to have known that, right? Not initially, but figured it out as I was typing my reply. I'm working on the assumption that the entertainment value of the game far outweighs the potential standings ramification when a mythical average fan weighs value for the money they've spent at the game. Said another way, I would expect most fans would walk out of a no-points game talking about the action (or lack therof) and not about the idea that the game resulted in fewer points than other games being played that night. At least I assume it would be that way for the bulk of the regular season games. Granted, I realize that there are plenty of fans in attendance that are serious enough fans to sweat points the opposition gets or doesn't get.
carpandean Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Oddly enough, ROW actually seems to be the best solution. Maybe, this year may be that odd example where the tie-breaker actually comes into play, and otherwise the ROW count means nothing. Having a ton of SO wins will still get you in over a team with lots of ROW, as long as you either (a) have one more win, or (2) have one or more additional OT/SO loss. If ROWs are really worth more, then shouldn't enough of them mean more than just a tie-breaker?
LastPommerFan Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 The problem with the current system is the scale. never in a million years is 2 losses the same as a victory. I don't care how many minutes it took you to lose, you lost. The shootout is a nice way to keep the games short, but if they'd go back to the 2005-2007ish rules, there would be enough scoring to reduce the number of shootouts. Shootouts would not be as annoying if they didn't happen one out of every 7 games.
shrader Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 Not initially, but figured it out as I was typing my reply. I'm working on the assumption that the entertainment value of the game far outweighs the potential standings ramification when a mythical average fan weighs value for the money they've spent at the game. Said another way, I would expect most fans would walk out of a no-points game talking about the action (or lack therof) and not about the idea that the game resulted in fewer points than other games being played that night. At least I assume it would be that way for the bulk of the regular season games. Granted, I realize that there are plenty of fans in attendance that are serious enough fans to sweat points the opposition gets or doesn't get. It shouldn't, but it completely depends on the time of the year. Fans are going to react far more to those tie games at this time of the year than they would at the start. The games have just as much of an impact on the final standings in November as they do today, but people will easily gloss over a tie back at that point.
JJFIVEOH Posted April 5, 2012 Report Posted April 5, 2012 3 points for a reg win, 2 points for a shootout or overtime win, 1 point for an overtime loss.
Campy Posted April 6, 2012 Report Posted April 6, 2012 3 points for a reg win, 2 points for a shootout or overtime win, 1 point for an overtime loss. I can see why people would like that, but I really like weave's idea: 2 points for a win (regulation or OT), no points for a tie or loss. That will keep teams honest - no playing for the tie - and will get rid of those ridiculous Wins-Losses-OTLosses records. Reward wins, not ties and losses :thumbsup:
shrader Posted April 6, 2012 Report Posted April 6, 2012 Am I crazy to think that they need to suspend for that one?
TrueBlueGED Posted April 6, 2012 Report Posted April 6, 2012 How did none of the officials see that!? They're bad. Am I crazy to think that they need to suspend for that one? Nope.
spndnchz Posted April 6, 2012 Author Report Posted April 6, 2012 You would think even the linesman could call a too many men on the ice penalty.
Eleven Posted April 6, 2012 Report Posted April 6, 2012 You would think even the linesman could call a too many men on the ice penalty. His head was turned. Why, though? Wow, just wow, there has to be some consequence for that!
JJFIVEOH Posted April 6, 2012 Report Posted April 6, 2012 I can see why people would like that, but I really like weave's idea: 2 points for a win (regulation or OT), no points for a tie or loss. That will keep teams honest - no playing for the tie - and will get rid of those ridiculous Wins-Losses-OTLosses records. Reward wins, not ties and losses :thumbsup: I actually 2 for a win and 0 for a loss like you do. But I can also see the league's point about ties, with scoring dropping ties would be boring for the fans. People are used to no more ties, I think it was different back in the day when we were accustomed to it. Now the question is, is scoring actually down because of the rules of the game or is scoring down because more and more teams are playing for a 3 pointer? If general rules were changed to help increase scoring I'd love to bring back the tie, or just make it a 2 and 0 system. The fact remains that we're all getting sick and tired of watching teams sit on the puck for the 3rd period. Something needs to be changed to give teams an incentive to score in the 3rd.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.