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

They still wouldn't be able to sign any decent FAs.

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
- Vanoxy

Not to mention staged fights dragging the league down to WWF levels.

bring the tie back, problem solved no 3 point games
- oilstone

Better idea! Stop giving the loser free points. Any type of loss (shootout or otherwise) should equal zero points.

I hate the fact that some games are worth more than others also so I looked at last years results with the suggestions from here.

3pt Win
2pt OT WIn
1pt SO win
0 Loss

2pts Win
1pt OT or SO Win
0pt Loss

3pts Win
2pts OT or SO Win
1pt OT or SO Loss

These 3 scenarios give the same 16 playoff teams as the current format. There are a couple of seed switches in each division but nothing dramatic. I'll try applying the same logic to previous years and see if there would have been any changes.

Why can't we play 10 or 20 minutes of OT? The OT should be 5 on 5. I don't want to see any of this 4 on 4 garbage. Get rid of the shootout altogether. If the game ends in a tie, no points.

I hate the fact that some games are worth more than others also so I looked at last years results with the suggestions from here.

3pt Win
2pt OT WIn
1pt SO win
0 Loss

2pts Win
1pt OT or SO Win
0pt Loss

3pts Win
2pts OT or SO Win
1pt OT or SO Loss

These 3 scenarios give the same 16 playoff teams as the current format. There are a couple of seed switches in each division but nothing dramatic. I'll try applying the same logic to previous years and see if there would have been any changes.
- Quicky72

Guessing 2 pts for any win and 0 for any loss would have the same results?

Srry, I am lazy and impressed by your energy.

Why can't we play 10 or 20 minutes of OT? The OT should be 5 on 5. I don't want to see any of this 4 on 4 garbage. Get rid of the shootout altogether. If the game ends in a tie, no points.
- bluv34

Sure.

Reward wins.

Game ends in a tie, then nothing was decided, don't give any points.

Can't stand where more points are rewarded in some games then others. I hate watching a game of two rival teams and rooting just for no OT.

Don't really care how they decide to go, just as long as every game is worth equal pts. But.......if I had to pick, 4on4 then 3on3 till a goal is scored. 3on3 would be great. Odd man rushes everywhere. RIP to the Shootout.

The IIHF has adopted the 3-2-1-0 point system for their tournaments, maybe that's the way to go to keep everyone happy.

Can't stand where more points are rewarded in some games then others. I hate watching a game of two rival teams and rooting just for no OT.

Don't really care how they decide to go, just as long as every game is worth equal pts. But.......if I had to pick, 4on4 then 3on3 till a goal is scored. 3on3 would be great. Odd man rushes everywhere. RIP to the Shootout.

The IIHF has adopted the 3-2-1-0 point system for their tournaments, maybe that's the way to go to keep everyone happy.
- jimrobin

Don't really like 3 points for a win when it has always been 2...

Really prefer a win is a win and a loss is a loss. ties didn't decide anything so why the need to reward points?

2 points for a regulation or OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.
0 points for any loss of any kind.
- gtrman09

i've been saying this for years, never reward the losing team

leafs absolutely humiliate the islanders, and the nucks are on pace to lose 9-0 against the stars. i guess it's quite easy to understand why one franchise has 13 stanley cups and the other has...ZERO

I've long supported the Olympic style point system of 3/0 regulation and 2/1 overtime.

The change to giving both teams at least a point for making it to OT was meant to end the days of both teams just playing defensive to preserve their tie point. In the end, the change just shifted that to the third period of a tie game. Both teams want to get to OT, then play for the extra point often times. This is not appealing.

A 3/0 2/1 system is the only way to completely eliminate it from the game as teams want the 3 points of a regulation win, so there is no reason to sit back to preserve at least one point.

Additionally, it better separates teams that consistently win regulation as more than just a tie breaker. Are 10 shootout wins truly as representative of a teams overall strength as 10 regulation wins? I don't really think so. This system would put them a full 10 points ahead.

What is this little league, everyone gets a trophy. 2 points for a win. 1 OT period for the win and no pints for a loss. That's hockey baby!

leafs absolutely humiliate the islanders, and the nucks are on pace to lose 9-0 against the stars. i guess it's quite easy to understand why one franchise has 13 stanley cups and the other has...ZERO
- sensnucksnocups

How many have the Leafs won when there have been more than six teams?
Oh yeah, the same as the Canucks

2 points for a regulation or OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.
0 points for any loss of any kind.

all the way !

Just read this. What about discussing the merits of changing the game to 4-on-4 in regulation?
I know most Fans will pooh-pooh the idea, but I think it's worth a try from several points of view, safety and level of play.

Consider that the ice size hasn't changed since pro hockey began a century ago, when players had regular day jobs and used training camp to get into shape (as late as the 60's, early 70's).
Today's Players are bigger, stronger, faster and train almost year-round. In recent years we've seen seemingly more injuries to top players. Flying around the ice while watching for the puck at speeds into the 30 kph range, trying not to run into other players, your own included, plus 4 officials leads to unintentional collisions.

Overtime 4-on-4 is always fast, exciting hockey. If we try it in regulation, the open ice will probably result in more wide open hockey, more goals and more fan pleasure. It might also lessen the number of injuries.
For rosters, each team only has to give up its 4th line so there's more ice-time for the more skilled players. 4th liners get the least ice and are by far the lowest paid anyway.

Traditionalists won't even consider the idea, but I feel that the time has come to consider this seriously. We got rid of the clutching & grabbing; now let's give the skilled players more room to dangle.

How many have the Leafs won when there have been more than six teams?
Oh yeah, the same as the Canucks
- howie feltersnatch

I love brain busters!
who has been the least successful original 6 franchise with just 4 wins? Ill give you a hint, its not MTL,TOR,BOS,DET, or CHI

How many have the Leafs won when there have been more than six teams?
Oh yeah, the same as the Canucks
- howie feltersnatch

so what your saying is, when the nhl expands and adds a couple more teams, all the cups previously won by the wings, oilers, habs etc are now irrelevant because there are now more teams in the nhl?

GREAT LOGIC ahahahahha

3 points? No thanks. No more loser points. Scrap the shootout. 4 on 4 OT for 10 mins. 2 points for a win, 1 point each for a tie. That's it.

The worst ice crew girl pic aside, this 3-pt discussion has to go.

2 pts for a win, period. Now that pre-OT has a dry-ice scrape, continue the 5-min 4-on-4 after switching ends, then go to 3-on-3 in 5-min increments, switching ends each time until there is a GWG.

You want to showcase the skaters and skill players? While still actually playing hockey? What better way than to open up the ice.

No ties, no shoot-out, and there is zero points for any loss. Losing is zero points, not one in some cases. No participation trophies. Done.

We d!cked around with this for decades, then went insane with the gimmick. Time to regain some sanity and showcase what the league is supposed to be showcasing: Skill players

I've been saying this for a while, and I've never seen it discussed anywhere but to me it makes the most sense:

2 points for a regulation win
0 points for a regulation loss

2 points for an OT win
.5 points for an OT loss

1 point for a shootout win
.5 points for a shootout loss

This keeps the historical points earned in prospective without introducing a 3 point win. It heavily rewards winning the game in regulation/OT but narrows the gap for a shootout decision since that really isn't representative of the game anyhow.

**EDIT** That being said I prefer no loser point. However I just don't see the league back pedaling on this, just like the shootout isn't going anywhere despite my loathing of it.

Overtime 4-on-4 is always fast, exciting hockey. If we try it in regulation, the open ice will probably result in more wide open hockey, more goals and more fan pleasure.
- haymac

More goals and wide open hockey will not result in added pleasure from this fan. A hard fought 2-1 hockey game can be infinitely more exciting than a 6-5 barn burner. It all depends on where the game is played, as long as there is end to end action and the game isn't spent entirely in the neutral zone I'm pleased. The total goals scored are insignificant.

2 points for a regulation or OT win.
1 point for a shootout win.
0 points for any loss of any kind.
- gtrman09

Exactly what I was thinking last night while the Predators commentator was complaining about going to shootouts. The only thing I would change is extend the OT anywhere from 7-10 mins. 4 out of the 5 OT games last night ended in the OT period. Give these guys 2-5 extra minutes of 4 on 4 and most if not all will end in OT. To skilled and to wide open not to, even if the league doesn't want to backpedal on taking away points.

How many have the Leafs won when there have been more than six teams?
Oh yeah, the same as the Canucks
- howie feltersnatch

Please don't feed the inbred toilet-baby. Let him beat it to his own posts and enjoy himself in peace.

so what your saying is, when the nhl expands and adds a couple more teams, all the cups previously won by the wings, oilers, habs etc are now irrelevant because there are now more teams in the nhl?

GREAT LOGIC ahahahahha
- sensnucksnocups

No, but what I am saying is the Leafs have just as many cups as Vancouver since the Canucks entered the league