Lynah now at full capacity

[Jim Hyla]

love 3x3 sorry! (do not love 55% but would probably be fine if we could negotiate this to, say, 70%)

I've just barely got used to the 3-2-1-0 point system in international/European hockey, but accepting an OT win as 55% of a win is a lot harder than 2/3 of a win.  (I'd be reasonably happy with a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system where you lost a point for going to OT, and the shootout after a tie counted for 1/4 as much as the rest of the game.)

+1

This was discussed 5 years ago. Depressing that college hockey has followed the poor implementation of the NHL

http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,199648,203620#msg-203620

I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,199648,203620#msg-203620
No.  No, no, no, no, no.  No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I agree with Greg, and the biggest thing that has bugged me about the NHL system is that each game should have the same total point value.  Is winning one game in overtime and losing another in overtime really 50% better than a 3 period win and a 3 period loss?   Now that the NHL has gone to the exciting but gimmicky 3 on 3 overtime, at least I'd like to see a 3-2-1-0 point value for NHL games, with the 2-1 covering both overtimes and shootouts. In effect then, an o't or shootout win would only be worth 1.33x what it was worth in the old system where teams divided 2 points.

The non-constant point value is a horrible feature of the OT rules and has been since the beginning. Neil and/or Jeff's suggestions would at least eliminate this quirk. But getting rid of the OT gimmicks is really the answer.

I've also never liked the idea of playing with a different rule set in OT than used in the rest of the game.  Adding gimmicky rules in special situations to add "excitement" just diminishes the game.  If OT with fewer than five skaters per side is a good idea then why not use it in the playoffs too?

For the same reason that we don't use 20 minute overtimes in the regular season: it's just different.

In addition, teams have a reason to try to play for a tie in the regular season. Having 10 skaters on the ice allows a team playing for the tie to completely clamp down and clog everything. This is bad from an entertainment perspective and from a perspective that argues we want teams to play for the win.

Contrastingly, neither team plays for a tie in the postseason (obviously), and thus 5-on-5 isn't a hinderance.

Turn on Caps-Penguins for OT right now: both teams are going to be flying up and down. That will not happen in the ECAC (unless you get a situation like Harvard-Cornell a couple years ago where both teams really want the win and have nothing to lose)

Yeah, 3 on 3 is so good that with a penalty they add players rather than subtract. They go to 4 on 3 for a penalty. When the penalty is over, it's 4 on 4 till the next whistle. Then it's back to 3 on 3. Guess what they do for 2 men down.

Boy do I love this rule.::screwy::

I'm just too old, I guess.

[jtwcornell91]

love 3x3 sorry! (do not love 55% but would probably be fine if we could negotiate this to, say, 70%)

I've just barely got used to the 3-2-1-0 point system in international/European hockey, but accepting an OT win as 55% of a win is a lot harder than 2/3 of a win.  (I'd be reasonably happy with a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system where you lost a point for going to OT, and the shootout after a tie counted for 1/4 as much as the rest of the game.)

+1

This was discussed 5 years ago. Depressing that college hockey has followed the poor implementation of the NHL

http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,199648,203620#msg-203620

I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,199648,203620#msg-203620
No.  No, no, no, no, no.  No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I agree with Greg, and the biggest thing that has bugged me about the NHL system is that each game should have the same total point value.  Is winning one game in overtime and losing another in overtime really 50% better than a 3 period win and a 3 period loss?   Now that the NHL has gone to the exciting but gimmicky 3 on 3 overtime, at least I'd like to see a 3-2-1-0 point value for NHL games, with the 2-1 covering both overtimes and shootouts. In effect then, an o't or shootout win would only be worth 1.33x what it was worth in the old system where teams divided 2 points.

The non-constant point value is a horrible feature of the OT rules and has been since the beginning. Neil and/or Jeff's suggestions would at least eliminate this quirk. But getting rid of the OT gimmicks is really the answer.

I've also never liked the idea of playing with a different rule set in OT than used in the rest of the game.  Adding gimmicky rules in special situations to add "excitement" just diminishes the game.  If OT with fewer than five skaters per side is a good idea then why not use it in the playoffs too?

For the same reason that we don't use 20 minute overtimes in the regular season: it's just different.

In addition, teams have a reason to try to play for a tie in the regular season. Having 10 skaters on the ice allows a team playing for the tie to completely clamp down and clog everything. This is bad from an entertainment perspective and from a perspective that argues we want teams to play for the win.

Contrastingly, neither team plays for a tie in the postseason (obviously), and thus 5-on-5 isn't a hinderance.

Turn on Caps-Penguins for OT right now: both teams are going to be flying up and down. That will not happen in the ECAC (unless you get a situation like Harvard-Cornell a couple years ago where both teams really want the win and have nothing to lose)

Yeah, 3 on 3 is so good that with a penalty they add players rather than subtract. They go to 4 on 3 for a penalty. When the penalty is over, it's 4 on 4 till the next whistle. Then it's back to 3 on 3. Guess what they do for 2 men down.

Boy do I love this rule.::screwy::

I'm just too old, I guess.

To be fair, penalties are handled in basically the only reasonably way given the other constraints.  But monkeying with OT seems like basically a problem in search of a solution.  (Between College Football's 2-point-conversion derby, MLB putting a runner on second base in extra innings, and 3x3/shootouts in hockey, it seems like there's a lot of messing with the post-regulation rules.)

[jtwcornell91]

What does it count as for RPI? The pairwise is practically just RPI with the occasional wrinkle. Looks like a tie to me, or maybe the same 55% stuff.

Good fodder for JTW's students, but not so much for my vintage brain.

We're working on the page proofs now, but here's the preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01267