Eventually, the game must end. Playing 4v4 or 3v3 gives an advantage to faster skating teams and a disadvantage to physical, forechecking teams. It's unfair to take away a teams biggest advantage then leave them no points if they lose.
- PhillySportsGuy

No, it's not unfair. The object of the game is to win. Every team does something "better" than every other team (see Brodeur, Martin, for example). It's up to your team to try to figure out how to beat the other team.

If tied after regulation, 4v4 OT until it ends. Two points to the winner, zero points for the loser. The frequency of games going beyond 10-12 minutes of OT will be so low as to render the tired "oh, the games are too long"argument moot.

I'd like to see some of those 3-man teams.
Kane, Toews, Keith
Cosby, Malkin, Letang
Ovechkin, Backstrom, Green
Kopitar, Carter, Doughty
Getzlaf, Perry, whoever
Datsyuk, N/A
- jmatchett383

Rosehill,Rinaldo,Gill

I say first team to shoot an apple off the top of Pierre McGuire's dome wins.
- Tomahawk

WOW!
This is the best idea EVER!

If tied after regulation, 4v4 OT until it ends. Two points to the winner, zero points for the loser. The frequency of games going beyond 10-12 minutes of OT will be so low as to render the tired "oh, the games are too long"argument moot.
- Scoob

Full 5V5 OT, no line-changes. I doubt many OTs would last beyond 2-3 mins.

Rosehill,Rinaldo,Gill
- PhillySportsGuy

I think I threw up in my mouth...
Sigh...

Regardless of how exactly a winner is decided, the loser point has to go. There's no reason a team should get a point in the standings for losing in overtime.

A flat tax as a form of punishment makes a certain amount of sense, but it would never be as high as 10%.
- wolfhounds

If your trying to draw me into a political arguement its not going to work....

Regardless of how exactly a winner is decided, the loser point has to go. There's no reason a team should get a point in the standings for losing in overtime.
- BulliesPhan87

Then you still have the issue of differently weighted games. I'm okay with the 3-0, 2-1 system.

If your trying to draw me into a political arguement its not going to work....
- youarewrong

Not you, just the groups that represent accountants.

Regardless of how exactly a winner is decided, the loser point has to go. There's no reason a team should get a point in the standings for losing in overtime.
- BulliesPhan87

W-L-T

The reason I'd like to keep it is because teams will play more open. If not, they will play more for a tie to get the 1 point. If they already have 1 point, they will really open things up. Especially, if it's against an out of division team.
- PhillySportsGuy

The thing I dont like about it, is it clusters teams. It actually does a dis-service to bad teams that manage to get to OT alot because they wont get a high pick.

I'm not worried about teams letting up because they are going to want the extra points. They will try hard to win in regulation for 3 points then possibly lose in OT for 0. Teams that play for ties will quickly fall out of contention while their opponents are getting 2 more points then them most nights. It would be a different story if the reg win was still 2 points.

Besides, not many games will go to a tie regardless when your playing 5 mintes of 3 on 3 hockey.

Never say never. Scott Gomez was traded
- PhillySportsGuy

For Ryan McDonagh.

Not you, just the groups that represent accountants.
- jmatchett383

My Mom is a CPA that owns her own firm. And she is still in favor of a flat tax. She says people will still need accountants, but the chains like H&R Block would die away.

For Ryan McDonagh.
- Feanor

He was kind of an afterthought. Chris Higgins was considered the centerpiece. Funny how that worked out.

For Ryan McDonagh.
- Feanor

To be completely fair to Gainey... he got rid of Chris Higgins' cap-hit, Gomez was still productive at that time, and McDonagh was thought to be DOA at Wisconsin.

I say first team to shoot an apple off the top of Pierre McGuire's dome wins.
- Tomahawk

What do you get for putting one between his eyes?

What do you get for putting one between his eyes?
- Doc_Sarcasm

Another shot at the apple

If your trying to draw me into a political arguement its not going to work....
- youarewrong

Nope, I wasn't. I just used the name of a concept we're likely all familiar with and similar arguments could be made for and against.

Then you still have the issue of differently weighted games. I'm okay with the 3-0, 2-1 system.
- jmatchett383

No you don't? I'm suggesting that the winner gets two points, regardless of when in the game they win. Losers get no points regardless of when they lose. All games are worth two points the way I'm describing it.

No you don't? I'm suggesting that the winner gets two points, regardless of when in the game they win. Losers get no points regardless of when they lose. All games are worth two points the way I'm describing it.
- BulliesPhan87

Oh, okay. Deal then.
But...say a game is tied 2-2 with 2 minutes to go. If a team has a lot of offensive firepower, they will (most likely) play for the more open ice OT, much like teams play for the shootout. But I guess it falls on the other team to win in regulation.

W-L-T
- Tomahawk

This would be ideal, in my opinion. But ties are gone forever, so I'd really just like to see that inexplicable third point removed from the game.

No you don't? I'm suggesting that the winner gets two points, regardless of when in the game they win. Losers get no points regardless of when they lose. All games are worth two points the way I'm describing it.
- BulliesPhan87

It looks like a question but reads like a statement...

I'm so confused.

It looks like a question but reads like a statement...

I'm so confused.
- wolfhounds

It's part of my mystique.

What do you get for putting one between his eyes?
- Doc_Sarcasm

Wells Fargo Great Check of the Game

This would be ideal, in my opinion. But ties are gone forever, so I'd really just like to see that inexplicable third point removed from the game.
- BulliesPhan87

Like baseball. You basically keep playing until someone wins, even if you have to bring an outfielder in to pitch. Of course the comparison isn't without it's flaws simply because of the nature of the game, but play til you win is the point.

MLB even had to add importance to the All Star Game they got so much crap that one season when the game just pittered out.