How about this? Just stop awarding LOSER points. Additionally, only award one point for shootout wins. Here's a breakdown:

2 points: Win in regulation or OT.
1 point: Win in Shootout
0 points: Lose at any time (regulation, OT, or Shootout)
- mames11

This is the best idea yet!!

I haven't looked into all the pros and cons but why not this...

Win in regular or overtime - 2 pts
Loss - 0 pts

Means you still have to put the puck in the net to win, without good teams racking up 3 points and losing the parity the league loves so much.

Shootout victory....scale it back to 1 pt winner takes all. As in, it's lesser value than a 'hockey win' and there are no loser points. Would this work?

I haven't looked into all the pros and cons but why not this...

Win in regular or overtime - 2 pts
Loss - 0 pts

Means you still have to put the puck in the net to win, without good teams racking up 3 points and losing the parity the league loves so much.

Shootout victory....scale it back to 1 pt winner takes all. As in, it's lesser value than a 'hockey win' and there are no loser points. Would this work?
- Fols19

oh great...I post this and the post right on top of mine has the same dam thing...well played...well played.

This is the best idea yet!!
- dmleip

That's exactly what I suggested and you said it promotes lame OT!

That's exactly what I suggested and you said it promotes lame OT!
- gtrman09

I disagree that it represents a lame overtime. Teams will still gun for 2 points and the 4 on 4 open ice helps open up for a goal. If there is only 1 point up for grabs in a shoot-out, the overtime should actually pick up the pace.

[quote=gtrman09]That's exactly what I suggested and you said it promotes lame OT!


My bad dude. I misread what you originally said. I thought that you said 1pt for shootout loss.

I'd take Ference over Barfkowski or anyone in Providence at this point.
- glove_was_stuck

Me too thats why i am willing to trade my delicious Ham Sammich for him!

all games are worth 3 pts, no more or less pts can be given:

Reg or OT: win = 3pts, loss = 0 pts
SO: win = 2 pts, loss = 1 pt

this treats the SO like a tie, split the points, with the left over point going to the winner but puts more emphasis on reg or OT win. I hate the charity point for losing in OT when hockey is still being played.

Better yet, rid of SO..... 2 for win, 0 for loss, 1 for tie.

Eklund: The Cranky Hockey Writers Tackle 3 Points for a Win? Your opinion?
- Eklund

Weighted wins - beyond stupid.

Weighted wins - beyond stupid.
- bcallaway

Points for losing? How about a participation ribbon?

[quote=gtrman09]That's exactly what I suggested and you said it promotes lame OT!


My bad dude. I misread what you originally said. I thought that you said 1pt for shootout loss.
- dmleip

Ah, gotcha. Yeah that would be dumb and would definitely make teams play it safe in OT.

I'm just sick of loser points.

if tie games are out of the question (they shouldn't be) you have to move to 3 point reg/ot wins. There is no way you will ever convince me that a shootout win == a regulation win, or a shootout loss == a regulation loss. The loser point needs to stay for that reason.

I don't understand all the hate for tie games, IMO if you win in a shootout you didn't win the hockey game, you tied the game and won the skills comp. Not all games need winners. If neither team won, neither team won. Don't appoint a winner for the sake of appointing a winner.

For some reason people seem to think the loser point is worse than the false-winner point.

3 points for a win and 1 for a tie. No more shootout! Worked for soccer, the game has never seen as many goals! Teams will stop playing for ties

if tie games are out of the question (they shouldn't be) you have to move to 3 point reg/ot wins. There is no way you will ever convince me that a shootout win == a regulation win, or a shootout loss == a regulation loss. The loser point needs to stay for that reason.

I don't understand all the hate for tie games, IMO if you win in a shootout you didn't win the hockey game, you tied the game and won the skills comp. Not all games need winners. If neither team won, neither team won. Don't appoint a winner for the sake of appointing a winner.

For some reason people seem to think the loser point is worse than the false-winner point.
- Blue Clam

For me, it's not hate for the tie, or hate for the shoot out. If it is all part of the game then no matter the situation the winner gets 2 points the loser gets 0 points.


If the shootout is part of the game then a win should be a win and a loss should be a loss.

If ot losses don't mean anything in the playoffs, why do they mean anything in the regular season?

Can we get a new column for moral victories?

So... Oilers and Bruins trading partners?
- MrBeanTown

Any form of point system is Bush league imo.
The shootout guarantees a winner, so we just need 2 columns in the standings... W & L

Win/Loss is the simplest and purest system out there and it has worked for decades in MLB and the NBA.

Why does the NHL need to be the only major pro league to stray from that formula? Obviously it is to give the illusion of parity in the standings, but I don't like rewarding teams for "coming close" or "trying really hard".

Win or go home empty handed, this is professional sports.
- Vanoxy

The NBA and MLB don't have W and L ever decided by a skills competition at the end. If you win, you win by beating the other team at the sport. This sport is designed to be played 5 on 5 over 60 minutes. If neither team loses over 60 minutes of 5 on 5, they don't deserve to be considered to have "lost" in the traditional sense of the word. There needs to be some recognition of that fact.

Both overtime and shootout provide a manipulated version of the sport (4 on 4 for OT), and while they serve to give one team a slight edge in the standings, they should not be weighted equally to the 60 minutes played prior. I think the logic is perfectly sound. Again, baseball and basketball continue playing the same game as long as it takes, so they aren't comparable.

If ot losses don't mean anything in the playoffs, why do they mean anything in the regular season?
- hillbillydeluxe

Notice that the only time that the league considers OT losses the same as regulation losses, they play 5 on 5 in overtime with 20-minute periods.

If, at the end of regulation, two teams are tied:

Fastest skater competition to determine the winner.

Case closed.

The NBA and MLB don't have W and L ever decided by a skills competition at the end. If you win, you win by beating the other team at the sport. This sport is designed to be played 5 on 5 over 60 minutes. If neither team loses over 60 minutes of 5 on 5, they don't deserve to be considered to have "lost" in the traditional sense of the word. There needs to be some recognition of that fact.

Both overtime and shootout provide a manipulated version of the sport (4 on 4 for OT), and while they serve to give one team a slight edge in the standings, they should not be weighted equally to the 60 minutes played prior. I think the logic is perfectly sound. Again, baseball and basketball continue playing the same game as long as it takes, so they aren't comparable.



Notice that the only time that the league considers OT losses the same as regulation losses, they play 5 on 5 in overtime with 20-minute periods.
- TheBold

I agree with you, and would love to see them play until a true winner is decided.
With charter flights and private team jets theres really no reason why they couldn't play until a true winner is decided.

I guess the almighty TV dollar is king.

The fact that you need to bring calculus into the picture to determine playoff magic numbers with a week left in the season gives the league a MickeyMouse look.

It's one reason Hockey fails in the south, where they aren't big on 'rithmatics

Hell, while were at it, let's make it 4 points!

Stupid idea.

Eklund: The Cranky Hockey Writers Tackle 3 Points for a Win? Your opinion?
- Eklund

The NHL doesn't want 3 points for reg wins because that would unmask the illusion that there is parity in the league. They like having the close race for the playoffs even though the chasm between the top teams and bottom teams is as wide as Richard Cloutier's ass.

The NBA and MLB don't have W and L ever decided by a skills competition at the end. If you win, you win by beating the other team at the sport. This sport is designed to be played 5 on 5 over 60 minutes. If neither team loses over 60 minutes of 5 on 5, they don't deserve to be considered to have "lost" in the traditional sense of the word. There needs to be some recognition of that fact.

Both overtime and shootout provide a manipulated version of the sport (4 on 4 for OT), and while they serve to give one team a slight edge in the standings, they should not be weighted equally to the 60 minutes played prior. I think the logic is perfectly sound. Again, baseball and basketball continue playing the same game as long as it takes, so they aren't comparable.

Notice that the only time that the league considers OT losses the same as regulation losses, they play 5 on 5 in overtime with 20-minute periods.
- TheBold

A win should be a win and a loss should be a loss. What more needs to be recognized?

If shootouts aren't part of the game, they shouldn't be in the game.

I hate it when it looks like teams have lots of time left in the third period and it is a tie game and they want at least one point so they play to tie... why should that be rewarded?

Want teams playing for the win in regulation then go

3 for reg. win
2 for O/T
1 for shoot out
0 for a loss of any kind

Want teams playing for the win in regulation then go

3 for reg. win
2 for O/T
1 for shoot out
0 for a loss of any kind
- Vipergtsr

This makes sense.

You'd also have about 5 teams every year needing relocation because the parity blinders are off.

We'd be left with the original six. Not a bad thing if you're Toronto I guess?

This makes sense.

You'd also have about 5 teams every year needing relocation because the parity blinders are off.

We'd be left with the original six. Not a bad thing if you're Toronto I guess?
- Fols19

I don't know, there would be more than the original 6 the way Canadian fans have been supporting the losing teams in their markets... it is just that Toronto leads the way.

I just want two columns - wins and losses. anything more than 2.5 columns and I get confused.

If they want to pass off a bastardized version of the game as meaningful, then make it count the same as the real thing.
Circus style hockey deciding an unbalanced style of standings makes the league look like a joke.
They have added 2 extra frames to decide a winner, so declare a winner ffs

Or go back to the w-l-t format