Everyone Gets a Point?

Saw this topic on uscho... thought it was interesting:

[www.grandforks.com]

Personally, I like the NHL rule of everyone getting a point for playing hard and close enough to reach OT, and the winner taking home an extra point. But that's my personal opinion.

I like 4-2-1 (win, tie, OT loss) personally. Keeps the Win/Tie ratio the same, but still recognizes OT losses.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. NO. NO!

Thank you.

My problem with awarding an extra point for an OT loss is that it can hurt a third team because three points instead of two were awarded for a single game.

If an OT loss is felt to be worth more than a regulation-time loss, then an OT win should be worth less than a regulation-time win to balance it. So, maybe three points should be awarded for a regulation-time win, two points for an OT win, one point for an OT loss, and no points for a regualtion-time loss.


(Even better might be to have a set of judges decide how many points should be awarded to each team, so that everything can be blamed on the Russian judge. )



Post Edited (02-06-04 12:27)

... or the french judge

If you awarded 3 points for a win, what about a tie game? I suppose you could always add in a shootout...

[Q]No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. NO. NO!

Thank you.[/Q]
In case you missed that,
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. NO. NO!

Two points should be awrded for each game. Period.

I hate the extra point. What is the point of overtime in the first place? IMO, overtime is to try to determine a winner and a loser. If you don't want a winner and a loser, then get rid of overtime altogether.
I understand the point of being rewarded for playing a hard fought game, but don't these things tend to work out themselves? Some OT games you win, some you lose. I guess I just don't like the concept of sorta winning, or sorta losing.

I'm not sure, but I seem to recall that after the rule was changed adding an overtime loss column, there was no significant increase in games decided in overtime.

In other words, the NHL screwed with the game, didn't do anything to improve it, and didn't solve the problem they were trying to solve.

Why do we want to adopt this NHL stupidity? Next thing you know, somebody will want touch-up icing.

If it ain't broke....don't fuck with it!

JH

Non-zero-sum point systems are icky. (And that includes soccer, with 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie.)

When Hockey East was having their shootout experiment, at least they had the same number of points avoided for every game (5 for a win, 3 for a shootout win, 2 for a shootout loss, and 0 for a loss).

[q]If you awarded 3 points for a win, what about a tie game? I suppose you could always add in a shootout...[/q] I knew that I forgot something. So, the simplest change would be to award four points for a regulation-time win, three for an OT win, two for a tie, one for an OT loss, and none for a regulation-time loss (and a partridge in a pear tree ).

As I indicated before, and John just said better "Non-zero-sum point systems are icky." So something like this would have to be done. However, I still like the present system better.

I am too lazy to check the Hockey-L archives, but didn't HE at one time have a non-zero-sum system for this, and then they changed to a zero-sum system during the season? IIRC, the whole thing disappeared after one year.



Post Edited (02-06-04 13:57)

I hate the NHL rule. I was so outraged when I first read about it, that I can remember exactly where I was at the time. Every game should be worth the same amount of total points. If Cornell and Colgate split two overtime games, do both deserve three points? It doesn't make us comparatively better than if we each won a one-goal game in regulation.
While I'm not a proponent of soccer's 3 points for a win and one for a tie, at least that gives teams an extra incentive to try for a regulation win. In the NHL, most teams would be willing to take a regulation tie in every game, with a shot at the extra point. I have trouble getting excited about watching an overtime (even though the play itself is exciting), when neither team has anything to lose.
Also ridiculous is the way this is shown in the standings. An overtime loss is actually a tie as far as the standing go, but appears in a separate column. It might as well be called a tie - such as Detroit picked up an overtime win last night, but Colorado still got credit for the tie. That's what is really happening, so why don't they just say that and simplify the standings. It's funny/pathetic when I hear announcers say things like 'The Kings lost a tough one in overtime to the Bruins" when it counts as much for them as a hard fought tie. If they are not going to change the points, at least they should change the standings, and get rid of the o't loss column and call it a tie.
But, that isn't the real solution. If they want to make overtime exciting, but still reward the loser, let's go to a 4-3-2-1-0 system, with each game worth four points, and an overtime win/loss being 3/1. Or, if they ever go to a shootout, which isn't my preference, they could do a 3 points game, with 2/1 for the shootout or overtime winner/loser.

Jeff Kahn '70 wrote:
I have trouble getting excited about watching an overtime (even though the play itself is exciting), when neither team has anything to lose.

That's the only reason OT is exciting in the NHL. It's not just the 4x4. 4x4 in regulation isn't the same. It's the combination of open ice and "nothing to lose". For what it's worth, I like it a lot in the NHL. It's entertaining. But I wouldn't want to see it change in college.