Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Nhl's 3 Point Overtime System

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1
Original Sin

Original Sin
  • GA Private
  • 2,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Sports, Gaming, Swimming
  • Xbox / GFWL:Original Sin33
  • PSN:Maybe Someday
  • Rofl-Rupees:3
  • Gamer Army ID:180
Just over a decade ago, the NHL brought in the new 3-point overtime format. If a game went into overtime, each team is given 1 point automatically. Whichever team scores in overtime (and later on, the shootout), is awarded an extra point, making some games worth 2 points in the standings, and some 3.

As of right now, there are 8 teams (6th-13th) that are THREE points within one another. I'm all for excitement down the stretch, but doesn't this seem a little bit of an overkill?


I'd much rather see ALL regulation wins be awarded 3 points, and then keep the overtime format the way it is.

What's your thoughts?

monsoonlol.png

QUOTE
"Don't be ashamed. It's only nature running its course."

#2
cadetduke

cadetduke
  • GA Private
  • 5,898 posts
  • xfire:cadetduke
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis, Mo
  • Steam ID:cadetduke
  • Xbox / GFWL:cadetduke
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Rofl-Rupees:2
  • Gamer Army ID:2069
  • Company:Foxtrot
I'd rather see a 2-point system and winner takes all in overtime. It's like giving the retarded kid in class a gold star for effort so he doesn't feel bad.
Midwest Gaming - Work in progress.

#3
eedok

eedok
  • GA Private
  • 5,414 posts
  • xfire:eedok
  • Location:Edmonton,AB,Canada
  • Interests:qqq
  • Steam ID:eedok
  • Xbox / GFWL:eedok
  • Wii:3394-3242-5681
  • Gamer Army ID:1176
that actually sounds interesting, and maybe it'd motivate teams to play harder to avoid overtime if they could

I am totally sadfacing about hockey this year though, damn leading the league in man games lost this year

#4
Sir Kyle Aziz

Sir Kyle Aziz
  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • xfire:kyleaziz0uchihaitachi
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston
  • Xbox / GFWL:DDR Aziz
  • Rofl-Rupees:7
I think it's fine. Before both teams got a point for a tie. Now there HAS to be a winner, it's just that the winner gets an extra point. Gotta be some sort of motivation to atleast tie the game with a few seconds left. Even if it's to deny someone else a playoff spot.

#5
AT Jive

AT Jive
  • Members
  • 1,583 posts
  • xfire:atjive
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:lasalle, ontario, Canada
I see nothing wrong with the 3-point system. At the end of regulation both teams are tied then they deserve a point other. If a team gets blown out 7-2 and another team loses 4-3 in a shootout or overtime that team doest deserve to receive the same amount of points as a team who got shit kicked.

#6
Original Sin

Original Sin
  • GA Private
  • 2,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Sports, Gaming, Swimming
  • Xbox / GFWL:Original Sin33
  • PSN:Maybe Someday
  • Rofl-Rupees:3
  • Gamer Army ID:180
QUOTE (AT Jive @ Feb 2 2010, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I see nothing wrong with the 3-point system. At the end of regulation both teams are tied then they deserve a point other. If a team gets blown out 7-2 and another team loses 4-3 in a shootout or overtime that team doest deserve to receive the same amount of points as a team who got shit kicked.

But a team that did the shit-kicking only deserves the same amount as the team that squeaked by with a 4-3 OT win? If you can earn the win in regulation, I think you deserve 3 points instead of 2. I wish there was a quick way to add up how the standings would look right now with 3-point regulation win system.

monsoonlol.png

QUOTE
"Don't be ashamed. It's only nature running its course."

#7
cadetduke

cadetduke
  • GA Private
  • 5,898 posts
  • xfire:cadetduke
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis, Mo
  • Steam ID:cadetduke
  • Xbox / GFWL:cadetduke
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Rofl-Rupees:2
  • Gamer Army ID:2069
  • Company:Foxtrot
I'm sticking to what I said earlier. Keep it simple, drop the OT column. 2-Point system, no overtime losses, winner takes all. 3-point system complicates everything.
Midwest Gaming - Work in progress.

#8
Original Sin

Original Sin
  • GA Private
  • 2,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Sports, Gaming, Swimming
  • Xbox / GFWL:Original Sin33
  • PSN:Maybe Someday
  • Rofl-Rupees:3
  • Gamer Army ID:180
QUOTE (cadetduke @ Feb 3 2010, 01:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I'm sticking to what I said earlier. Keep it simple, drop the OT column. 2-Point system, no overtime losses, winner takes all. 3-point system complicates everything.

The argument against that, is that some teams will purposely sign a couple of players that are experts in the shootout and nothing more. They'll always try and play for the tie, and it makes for very boring hockey.

I myself am not a huge Leaf fan, but it does suck knowing that they're already out of the playoffs with over a quarter left to play. If there was a 3 point regulation win system put into place, they might have a better shot at a comeback, making it more interesting for those bottom barrel teams to catch up. Though the gap may be even larger if there were 3 points for each game.... when I get the time, I may do an updating standings. It'll so take forever though icon_sad.gif

Edited by Original Sin, 03 February 2010 - 01:49 PM.

monsoonlol.png

QUOTE
"Don't be ashamed. It's only nature running its course."

#9
Sir Kyle Aziz

Sir Kyle Aziz
  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • xfire:kyleaziz0uchihaitachi
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston
  • Xbox / GFWL:DDR Aziz
  • Rofl-Rupees:7
QUOTE (Original Sin @ Feb 3 2010, 01:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The argument against that, is that some teams will purposely sign a couple of players that are experts in the shootout and nothing more. They'll always try and play for the tie, and it makes for very boring hockey.

I myself am not a huge Leaf fan, but it does suck knowing that they're already out of the playoffs with over a quarter left to play. If there was a 3 point regulation win system put into place, they might have a better shot at a comeback, making it more interesting for those bottom barrel teams to catch up. Though the gap may be even larger if there were 3 points for each game.... when I get the time, I may do an updating standings. It'll so take forever though icon_sad.gif



No no no no no no no no no no no.

All all wrong. There is NO team that is aiming for a tie just so that they can go to the shootout. It's a complete wild card the shoot out. While it is fun to watch you can't have a team rely soley on shootouts to get anywhere because come playoff time they'll be eliminated. It's so stupid it doesn't even make sense.

Next point, it's perfectly fine the way it is. The second we start awarding a team for winning 7-2 over a team that wins 4-3 is going to be a fucking cold day in hell. You'd have to be a complete retard to reward some team for having a mediocre game against a team that plays like absolute asshole.

Lets just throw out two names that have nothing to reflect on the teams or players or anything atm.

Say Colorado and Toronto are playing. Toronto is having a very BAD game. I mean, their goal tender just let in 2 very soft goals in the first 10 minutes. Then Colorado scores a short hander and then an even strength goal. The goaltender gets switch in first intermission and there's a goal for Toronto on the power play during the second. Come third period, Colorado gets a lucky bounce and it's 5-1 now. The game ends 5-1 for Colorado. Should they get 3 points for that? No, I don't think so.

Now Tampa Bay and the Rangers are playing. It's an intese game, back and forth down the ice with good quality chances and solid saves by the goal tenders at either end. No scoring through the first 40 minutes of play but the shots are 25 Tampa and 30 for the Rangers. Some very quality saves on one timers and shots through traffic from the point. I mean a stellar game. It's a 1-1 tie after the third and it goes into OT. Where the Rangers get a beautiful goal by some tic tac toe passing in the Tampa Bay zone. I mean both teams earned their 1 point each that night. They faught for it. Does this mean that they should the Rangers should only get 2 points for winning a very GOOD hard faught game by them, where Colorado kinda just got lucky? No.

You can't just go out and award people for completing a game without needing overtime for a winner. Otherwise you'll have to start awarding teams on how hard of an effort they put in. It's just completely stupid that way. The system the way it is now is perfectly fine.

You can't come up with any reason why the game should be changed. It's fine the way it is. At the end of the day, SOMEONE has to win, and someone has to lose.

#10
Original Sin

Original Sin
  • GA Private
  • 2,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Sports, Gaming, Swimming
  • Xbox / GFWL:Original Sin33
  • PSN:Maybe Someday
  • Rofl-Rupees:3
  • Gamer Army ID:180
QUOTE (Sir Kyle Aziz @ Feb 4 2010, 03:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You can't come up with any reason why the game should be changed.

I can come up with a few. The leading reasons are:

A team plays hard all year long, they sit about 4 points ahead of 9th place with 3 games left to go. They lose their star player to a freak accident for 2 weeks, lose all 3 games. 9th place then squeaks by with 3 OT wins, and passes them in the final game. Even though the first team has more wins, they have less OT losses and miss out on the playoffs because of it.

When I first made this thread, there were 8 teams just three points out from one another. Between then and now, that gap changed to 1 point for a few days. 1 point, 8 teams. Even now, there's just a 5 point gap.

Many sports analysts agree that the close races are killing the trade deadline day, as most teams still think they have a legitimate shot so late into the season. There isn't that far enough gap between great teams and mediocre teams, because the mediocre teams are still getting rewarded for holding onto a tie and playing defensively for 10 minutes in the 3rd period.

monsoonlol.png

QUOTE
"Don't be ashamed. It's only nature running its course."

#11
Sir Kyle Aziz

Sir Kyle Aziz
  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • xfire:kyleaziz0uchihaitachi
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston
  • Xbox / GFWL:DDR Aziz
  • Rofl-Rupees:7
Except for that even if the team still went to a tie instead of OT, they'd have made it in anyway. See where I'm goin with this?

So to completely END games even if both are tied. Then what? Flip a coin and have one team win and another team lose?

An if you think that teams are confident in their lineups. They are ALWAYS going to be looking for that extra little bit to make it further in the playoffs. I expect a lot of trades between now and the deadline. Some big ones too.

Edit: If you think a team with a tie is just going to try and wait for OT you're wrong. They don't want another team getting that one point, so they'll play conservative but they'll not play defensively. That's a mistake. Maybe you should become a coach of a hockey team if possible and you'll see what I mean. You're not going to want your team to be like "Hey guys we're tied. Lets just hold on till OT and we can get atleast 1 point." No it's about the WIN. See last nights Edmonton-Philly game.

Edited by Sir Kyle Aziz, 04 February 2010 - 09:30 PM.


#12
Original Sin

Original Sin
  • GA Private
  • 2,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Sports, Gaming, Swimming
  • Xbox / GFWL:Original Sin33
  • PSN:Maybe Someday
  • Rofl-Rupees:3
  • Gamer Army ID:180
I've already said I'm all in favor of the current Overtime system they have right now. I just want to see regulation wins count for 3 points instead of 2, making EVERY game count as 3 points, not just some.

That Edmonton/Philly example is a bad one. They're from different conferences. They don't care what the other team does. That was just Edmonton on the power play, trying to score a goal. Besides, they're not going to make the playoffs anyway. One point or two, makes no difference. They didn't care if Philly got a point, either.

monsoonlol.png

QUOTE
"Don't be ashamed. It's only nature running its course."

#13
AT Jive

AT Jive
  • Members
  • 1,583 posts
  • xfire:atjive
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:lasalle, ontario, Canada
3 points for a win in regulation will not work. It doesn't make any sense to reward a team an extra point because they won in 60 minutes, a win is a win regardless of how you get it. A lose can be different tho, like previously stated about if you are tied after 60 minutes of play you deserve a point, you earned it and in overtime that extra point is now up for grabs.

#14
Sir Kyle Aziz

Sir Kyle Aziz
  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • xfire:kyleaziz0uchihaitachi
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston
  • Xbox / GFWL:DDR Aziz
  • Rofl-Rupees:7
QUOTE (Original Sin @ Feb 4 2010, 11:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I've already said I'm all in favor of the current Overtime system they have right now. I just want to see regulation wins count for 3 points instead of 2, making EVERY game count as 3 points, not just some.

That Edmonton/Philly example is a bad one. They're from different conferences. They don't care what the other team does. That was just Edmonton on the power play, trying to score a goal. Besides, they're not going to make the playoffs anyway. One point or two, makes no difference. They didn't care if Philly got a point, either.


No people DO care about the win, even if they're not going to make the playoffs. Having close to .500 is better then just sayin fuckit the rest of the season. Considering peoples jobs are on the line, a team will ALWAYS try to win, always.

#15
Original Sin

Original Sin
  • GA Private
  • 2,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Sports, Gaming, Swimming
  • Xbox / GFWL:Original Sin33
  • PSN:Maybe Someday
  • Rofl-Rupees:3
  • Gamer Army ID:180
QUOTE (Sir Kyle Aziz @ Feb 6 2010, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No people DO care about the win, even if they're not going to make the playoffs. Having close to .500 is better then just sayin fuckit the rest of the season. Considering peoples jobs are on the line, a team will ALWAYS try to win, always.

Uhh, what? When did I say they didn't care about the win? I was simply stating that it doesn't matter if they got 1 point or 2. To them it might, but to the standings it doesn't.

monsoonlol.png

QUOTE
"Don't be ashamed. It's only nature running its course."

#16
Original Sin

Original Sin
  • GA Private
  • 2,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Sports, Gaming, Swimming
  • Xbox / GFWL:Original Sin33
  • PSN:Maybe Someday
  • Rofl-Rupees:3
  • Gamer Army ID:180
For the record, they use the 3 point system in the Olympics already, as well as no touch icing. 2 rules that I feel should be adopted by the NHL.

monsoonlol.png

QUOTE
"Don't be ashamed. It's only nature running its course."

#17
cadetduke

cadetduke
  • GA Private
  • 5,898 posts
  • xfire:cadetduke
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis, Mo
  • Steam ID:cadetduke
  • Xbox / GFWL:cadetduke
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Rofl-Rupees:2
  • Gamer Army ID:2069
  • Company:Foxtrot
QUOTE (Original Sin @ Mar 6 2010, 07:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
For the record, they use the 3 point system in the Olympics already, as well as no touch icing. 2 rules that I feel should be adopted by the NHL.

Why no touch icing? I think it takes away from the game.
Midwest Gaming - Work in progress.

#18
Original Sin

Original Sin
  • GA Private
  • 2,155 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Sports, Gaming, Swimming
  • Xbox / GFWL:Original Sin33
  • PSN:Maybe Someday
  • Rofl-Rupees:3
  • Gamer Army ID:180
QUOTE (cadetduke @ Mar 8 2010, 12:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Why no touch icing? I think it takes away from the game.

Useless injuries. They seem to be happening with more frequency now. It seems like 49 out of 50 times an icing is the d-man wasting time having to skate back and touch it uncontested anyway. Why not speed things up a bit and get a quicker whistle in there.

monsoonlol.png

QUOTE
"Don't be ashamed. It's only nature running its course."

#19
Sir Kyle Aziz

Sir Kyle Aziz
  • Members
  • 6,812 posts
  • xfire:kyleaziz0uchihaitachi
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kingston
  • Xbox / GFWL:DDR Aziz
  • Rofl-Rupees:7
No, the no touch icing always bugged me. I always saw it as the lazy man's version of hockey.

Oh, they dumped the puck. No need to skate back now 'cause it's going to be icing. That's just bs.

And the Olympics 3 point system is different because it's round robin. An they NEED one team to advance. They can't have a tie.

#20
cadetduke

cadetduke
  • GA Private
  • 5,898 posts
  • xfire:cadetduke
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis, Mo
  • Steam ID:cadetduke
  • Xbox / GFWL:cadetduke
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Rofl-Rupees:2
  • Gamer Army ID:2069
  • Company:Foxtrot
QUOTE (Original Sin @ Mar 8 2010, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Useless injuries. They seem to be happening with more frequency now. It seems like 49 out of 50 times an icing is the d-man wasting time having to skate back and touch it uncontested anyway. Why not speed things up a bit and get a quicker whistle in there.

It adds time to the clock, it doesn't speed it up at all. And I've seen plenty of defenders get beat to the puck.
Midwest Gaming - Work in progress.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users