You're right, teams look at it and see that its easier to get the extra point in OT or shootout so the coast a little more or play more conservative. Making OT longer just means more miles on the legs in the season and I think that might actually motivate some guys to end it earlier

That being said, I dont mind the shootout as a form of resolution. It was just happening way too often and deciding too many games and would rather see more 4-on-4 to end games (3-on-3 is the worst).
- WhiteLie

If you want games to avoid going to the SO, make the damn rinks bigger and play OT like in the playoffs, full 20 minute periods until someone scores.

If you want games to avoid going to the SO, make the damn rinks bigger and play OT like in the playoffs, full 20 minute periods until someone scores.
- DariusKnight

If a game is tied at the end of regulation, why not just end it with no points awarded? Wins would be even more important, no sitting on a tie and getting rewarded for keeping it close.

If you want games to avoid going to the SO, make the damn rinks bigger and play OT like in the playoffs, full 20 minute periods until someone scores.
- DariusKnight

Which would be good as well.

I would if it provided better hockey in the third periods rather than having teams play for the loser point in OT. Plus having to watch Garys boys manufacture phantom calls to get the games to OT to pump the 3/3 for the pathetic all star game. It really is sad.

It's easy:

4/4 for ten minutes with no shootout. you would have a 75% score rate if 4/4 was for ten minutes.

If it's a tie it's a tie. 1 point for each club and move on. We need these bloody teams to start playing for the win in regulation.
- LordHumungous

If you'll remember, the reason they went to the shootout was because teams were playing for the tie. They would rather split with a point a piece rather then letting a division rival get an extra point.

Yet you get your money's worth after a demoralizing defeat?

FIGHT!!!
- Marwood

Not saying I love the loser points, just that the league felt like the fans wanted "closure" after a game, and I think they are right. *Most* fans want the game to end with a winner and a loser, even if that loser gets a point for their effort.

We (Canuck fans) don't like the 3 on 3 because the Canucks suck at it. Maybe the NHL should go to jamboree style 3 on 3. They could have 3 simultaneous games on the ice at one time, the team with the best 2 out of 3 wins!

If you'll remember, the reason they went to the shootout was because teams were playing for the tie. They would rather split with a point a piece rather then letting a division rival get an extra point.
- 1970vintage

This is why the 3 2 1 point format is best.
3 points for a regulation win will be all the motivation teams need.

The only thing worse is when refs make phantom calls to try to help the trailing team win or just make calls to even out power plays. When there is too much game management.

What was with that elbowing penalty on Edler at the start of last game?

It was scrambly at the end of regulation, but I think I saw Jagr cross check Edler from behind, at the side of the net and tried to direct him to fall into the crease/on Miller.

Refs go from calling everything close to ignoring everything but gbh.
- hillbillydeluxe

Don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with 3 on 3 or shootouts...

This is why the 3 2 1 point format is best.
3 points for a regulation win will be all the motivation teams need.
- Pres.cup

Ah, but then the record books will need to be "qualified", because a team will shatter the old league record with 150 points in a season!

edit - also, I agree, there should be no points for the looser:

3 points for regulation win
2 points for OT win
1 point for shootout win
0 points for losing any of the above.

Not saying I love the loser points, just that the league felt like the fans wanted "closure" after a game, and I think they are right. *Most* fans want the game to end with a winner and a loser, even if that loser gets a point for their effort.

We (Canuck fans) don't like the 3 on 3 because the Canucks suck at it. Maybe the NHL should go to jamboree style 3 on 3. They could have 3 simultaneous games on the ice at one time, the team with the best 2 out of 3 wins!
- 1970vintage

I don't like 3-on-3 because it doesn't resemble normal hockey. Its a lousy combination of sprinting hockey and puck possession. Guys deliberately taking the puck out of the offensive zone back to their own face-off dot just to complete a line change or the rush they started didn't look right? Brutal to watch

If you want games to avoid going to the SO, make the damn rinks bigger and play OT like in the playoffs, full 20 minute periods until someone scores.
- DariusKnight

That will never happen during the regular season.

Don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with 3 on 3 or shootouts...
- 1970vintage

Sorry, was more or less responding to the notion, there is nothing worse than fans feeling disappointed with a tie sentiment, with the refs/league are ruining the game with their game management and inconsistent and selective application of the rules.

which is almost as bad as the sudden importance of instant replays with different camera angles, non standard, from arena to arena.

Sorry, was more or less responding to the notion, there is nothing worse than fans feeling disappointed with a tie sentiment, with the refs/league are ruining the game with their game management and inconsistent and selective application of the rules.

which is almost as bad as the sudden importance of instant replays with different camera angles, non standard, from arena to arena.
- hillbillydeluxe

Ah, gotcha.

Ah, gotcha.
- 1970vintage

Are the refs and the linesman compensated differently if the game goes to OT? I find that since the last CBA between the league and the Refs, the number of OT games have increased. I am just drawing parallels but it is just too coincidental that since the last agreement the number of OT games have increased.

I for one hate giving a team that loses a point.

2 for the winner
0 for the loser

Stop rewarding failure.
- VANTEL

regulation or O/T win - 2pts
regulation or O/T loss - 1pt
Shootout win - 1 pt
Shootout loss - 0 pts...

Are the refs and the linesman compensated differently if the game goes to OT? I find that since the last CBA between the league and the Refs, the number of OT games have increased. I am just drawing parallels but it is just too coincidental that since the last agreement the number of OT games have increased.
- Linden_4_Capt

League imposed parity.

Babcock is a good coach, but he's not doing much with less talented players. And I'm not sure how you can say the results have been the same year after year. If you mean we haven't one a cup, well yeah, I can't argue that. But other than the Torts year and this one, most likely, we've been a solid regular season team that was competitive in most games. And our PK has been consistently good other then this year, including under Lidster last season when it finished second in the league. That wasn't an accident.

I'm not defending Lidster, but it's too simplistic to lay all the blame at his feet. Benning deserves his share and the players as well. It's been a team effort, IMO.
- CubanBuffet

Im talking bout the D, not the forwards or special teams....which was the topic

Are the refs and the linesman compensated differently if the game goes to OT? I find that since the last CBA between the league and the Refs, the number of OT games have increased. I am just drawing parallels but it is just too coincidental that since the last agreement the number of OT games have increased.
- Linden_4_Capt

Maybe the refs get double time for o/t?
That would explain a lot.

This is why the 3 2 1 point format is best.
3 points for a regulation win will be all the motivation teams need.
- Pres.cup

I think I have to agree in that format for the most part ....but not entirely.
I read reading these posts and feeling like there is no real solution to this problem, none that will solve all the issues or leave everyone satisfied. There are many answers that solve parts of it and I'd be OK with but it's an enigma really.

I think the new point system is probably the best of the fixes. I do wonder however if 3-2-1 is really any different than 2-0 as it's still a 2 point difference between loser and winner. THen why award the loser any points? It will inflate stats and convolute the record books. Is this little league where everyone gets unlimited swings till you hit it? This is pro sports for crying out loud.

But yes it is probably the better proposal out there, I just dont see how its better or different than 2-0 system.

regulation or O/T win - 2pts
regulation or O/T loss - 1pt
Shootout win - 1 pt
Shootout loss - 0 pts...
- kaptaan

3 points for a regulation win
2 points for a OT or so win
1 point for a OT or so loss
0 points for a regulation loss

A win in regulation will result in a the point swing where a win in OT will be a one point difference. Most teams will try to win in regulation



Extra point for winning by 5 or more goals
Extra point for goal of the week
Extra point for save of the week

Ok those last three are jokes but so is the nhl sometimes.

Hi,

Updates from practice today and a look at the Canucks' world junior prospects, in today's blog:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...uniors-Check-In/194/73428

regulation or O/T win - 2pts
regulation or O/T loss - 1pt
Shootout win - 1 pt
Shootout loss - 0 pts...
- kaptaan

I like this one..... I'm tired of uninterested players firing the puck in the corner during SO

I like this one..... I'm tired of uninterested players firing the puck in the corner during SO
- SMBDragon

I have never seen that in my life.

I have never seen that in my life.
- A_SteamingLombardi

Tuesday material is coming out early.