As a fresh NHL fan and based in Wales I don't have much authority but I see it as the job is to win the game in 60 mins you don't do that you don't deserve the same as a team that did. So the 3,2,1,0 point system makes sense to me, unless you guys get onboard with draws! I totally agree about shootouts, it's not a reflection on the teams cohesive ability but I will say as a kid watching penalties I love the drama of it, it was so exciting I think it's a great reward for a kid watching what usually has been a pretty boring match! Kids with small gardens can put some chalk on a wall and still feel like hitting a ball/puck against it is a chance to relive last night's game!
The problem with the 3-2-1-0 system, it barely changes anything, in the salary cap era, out of 518 different team records, there would only be 9 standings swaps… meaning only 18 teams standings would’ve been effected out of the 518 individual season records. If you convert the standings to a 3-2-1-0 system, you’d have to go back to the 17-18 season to see a change in the standings.
No, no, no, no. You can't judge this going back in time when the rule wasn't in place. It has been explained many times. The strategy for the last five or 10 minutes of a game is to get super defensive and take the game to OT to at least get a point. If Toronto was playing Florida and it's tied 1-1 - there is very little incentive with a few minutes left to try to win it in regulation. If you could gain a full three points on your competition, however, there is a much greater incentive to go for it and provide some entertainment in the actual 60 minute game. Even thinking back to the last few games of last season with several teams jockeying for the last playoff spot, it would have made things much more entertaining. There should be an incentive to winning games during the actual game and not the skills competition (shootout) or the hybrid skills competition/game (OT).
@@jeffreym.8957 I don’t think that argument ever held much weight. Teams could just as well not want to take any risk in a tied game to prevent the potential 3 point swing.
I looked at this a little while ago. In the salary cap era, out of 518 different team records, 272 playoff teams and 246 non-playoff teams, only nine swaps (18 total teams affected) would have taken place. In other words, 96.5% of teams remain as either a playoff team or a non-playoff team. This hasn't even happened since the 17-18 season, where the Panthers would have overtaken the Blue Jackets.
Thank you for sharing this data. It validates my thoughts that criticism of the 3-point system is pretty overblown. The parity the current system creates is a good thing in my opinion, and at least one alternative to this system barely changes outcomes anyway, as evident by your data
@@JDAWG2111 No worries, and even further, almost none of these swaps would have made a huge impact. The 2006 Oilers are the only teams that had a significant impact from these cases (they would have been replaced by the Canucks). All other instances, teams either lost in the first or second round, with the 2010 Canadiens (would have been teplaced by Rangers) going to the 3rd round. At the end of the day, the contenders are going to be in the playoffs regardless.
@@poejavelski148Interesting, as I haven't looked that closely at it myself. Did you find that it would have changed the playoff seeding, perhaps given more teams home ice advantage or changed the match ups in the first rounds. Just curious.
@ I didn’t look that one step further, perhaps I will in the future, but mo doubt seedings would have changed, like for example a 4th swapping with a 5th. However, because there were so few playoff swaps (ie 10th and 9th swapping with 8th and 7ths etc) I imagine it would also be quite insignificant and not a whole lot of home ice advantage changes.
9:26 The KHL’s minor league added a rule that I think would reduce the number of shootouts without extending 3 on 3 OT. It pretty much says in OT an offensive player cannot re enter his own zone while possessing the puck, if he does the following face off will be in their zone.
@cavanlyons9537 As you should be. The emphasis should be on regulation wins. If you don’t play well enough to win in regulation, you get punished by only getting 2 points for the win. If you get to overtime and don’t play well enough to win, you get punished by only getting 1 point.
The system should be essentially the same, except for this. No Shoot out, if the game is still tie after 5 minutes prolongation, each teams get 1 pts, the bonus points goes away.
Exactly. And this worked quite well from 99-00 through 03-04. The better teams got the wins in regulation or OT, while the mediocre ones lost in OT alot or had a lot of ties, and missed the playoffs as a result.
Still not enough incentive to not sit back and take a tie. A win should be worth 2 more points than a tie. Example regulation win is 3, OT win 2, tie 1 each, loss in any way 0. Or regulation and OT wins are 3, ties and OT loss 1, regulation loss 0.
At 0:50 teams are not pulling goalies when tied in Europe where we have a 3-point-system (regulation W 3 points, OTW 2 points, OTL 1 point, reg loss 0 points).
We have the 3-point system in Finland and I actually prefer the old 2-point system the NHL is using. Keeps the playoff spots uncertain for a longer time.
I think the 3 points for a win comes from soccer/football. They used to award 2 for a win and 1 for a tie but so many teams were playing for ties that in the 1970s and 80s FIFA made wins worth 3 points
This is the same idea as 3,2,1,0 but removing overtime/shootout. I'm okay with that. Shootout is mostly a coin toss, it doesn't happen in the playoffs. 3v3 overtime is also not happening in the playoffs. So yeah, I'm definitely down with it.
The way I think of it: Both teams "tied" at the end of regulation, so they both get a point, then the OT winner gets a bonus point. I think that's the most fair argument.
The league definitely needs to do one of the two options, either the international 3 point system, or bring back ties. The loser point is brutal, and the shootout to decide a game is a joke. You see it now that there's now urgency at the end of regulation from teams in a tied game. The 3 point system qould Change that
The Islanders are hanging tough without Barzal, Reilly, Pelech, Romanov, and the new signing of Duclair. They are all injured. That team is just tough. I'd like to go back to the old point system. But it is the system we have and that's on Bettman. Not the Islanders.
I don't like the idea of three points for a win, because comparing records before and after that change would be even more difficult. We would effectively have a large case of point inflation. I do like the idea of eliminating the "loser point", which has outlived it's purpose in any case. It was introduced back when ties were still allowed, and the idea was to reduce the number of ties by giving teams an incentive to go for the win in overtime. Teams would know that if an offensive play backfires and leads to an overtime goal against, then they haven't lost anything because the alternative was a tie, so they would get just one point either way. Now, with the shootout added, a team still does lose something when scored against in overtime: they lose a chance to win the shootout. So the "loser point" is no longer effective in it's original purpose, and it still may perversely cause more shootouts by causing more games to go to overtime in the first place. How many times, late in regulation of a tied game, do the teams stop taking chances for offense, and just play conservatively to secure one point before going for the second? I know that regulation wins as the first tiebreaker discourages this somewhat, but it still happens. I would also be OK with bringing back ties, but I know that this is a minority view. But if we are keeping the shootout, then we should really get rid of the "loser point", and simply let a win be a win and a loss be a loss, which was the reason people wanted to get rid of ties in the first place. With shootouts, the "loser point" doesn't serve it's original purpose but still has it's negative unintended consequence.
Im with u on the ties tbh the shootout can lead to some good moments but I really just wanna see these guys play hockey. Shootout kinda feels like its own thing entirely.
I simply don't understand why people whine about the current system. It's not like we don't have enough points over the course of an 82-game regular season that we are constantly relying on tie-breaker at the end of the season for the playoff spot. And if you are just an angry red wings fan, two number for you, -37 and 27, that should be enough to cool you down.
Completely agree. And a system that allows casual fans to be more engaged for longer in the season is also a good thing too. Have a buddy who is a Blue Jackets fan, and even if I know they don't have a chance it keeps him following the season for a lot longer and deeper into the season. Hardcore fans know that 6 to 8 points is a big deficit, but it seems manageable to overcome for casuals which is a good thing.
Thanks for the video! A three point for a win system might benefit from ending games in regulation with ties where both teams get one point. Some teams might play for a tie but teams that need points would be more aggressive in the final minutes of regulation. Keep the overtime games just for playoffs, in this system. It's definitely different math and strategies. Also, have shorthanded goals end a penalty.
The # of points you get for a win is intrinsically related to whether you want an elaborate overtime process or not. The reason we embraced shootouta for OT in the 1990s was that shootouts were fun when you saw them in the Winter Olympics
Alright, but here is the thing: the SO only happened from the quarterfinals beyond in the Winter Olympics. At least in 1998 and 2002. Which really makes sense because it's one game, winner advances. If it stays tied after OT you have to decide a winner somehow. The way the NHL employs the SO is to merely avoid having tied games in the regular season.
@@benellison5668 I'm gonna disagree with you on this. The overuse doesn't generate the same buzz. That was the expectation, but there is simply no way to replicate, or even come close to it. I only saw one regular season shootout that had this effect, the Philadelphia-New York one in 2010. Winner to the playoffs, loser would be out.
Shootouts are not hockey, they’re a skills contest in hockey uniforms. If you want to spare your guys, 3v3 for ten minutes, bring back the tie, no loser point.
3v3 isn't regular hockey either. It's a game of keep away until the defending team makes a mistake. It can be very exciting, if they're going back and forth. But most of the time they're just skating around.
@borisvandruff7532 - No, you get the opposite. Teams play safe to keep the point. The last 5 minutes of the 3rd period of tie games were boring back in the day.
Shannon pointed out that the current system makes it seem like mediocre teams are closer to being competitive than they actually are. This must help ticket sales. I'm guessing this would be the weightiest argument against change.
for me OT is a mess. 3 on 3 is a keep-away possesion game that doesn't exist in the regular 60 minutes, the shootout is a flipcoin that none of the coaches or players really try hard to win, the free wins for shootout games help teams to have records season yet they fall in the first round of the playoffs where the OT is perfect. Ties needs to come back. 5 on 5 OT too. it will make the parity and wildcard races even tighter
4 on 4 OT was fine and I have no idea why they felt they needed to change it to 3 on 3. I hate watching 3 on 3, it's like if I grabbed 5 of my buddies and we went down to the rink and played pickup hockey, it looks terrible and unorganized.
@@BSAnimemy disdain for the divisional format becomes apparent after the first round. It’s true the first round seeding is many times identical in both formats, but in divisional there are only 8 possible matchups in round 2, as opposed to 18 possible matchups in a 1v8 format. Granted, some matchups are dependent on the others and several are incredibly unlikely (ie we probably would never see 5v8 & 6v7 in the second round), but it still offers more intrigue than the current format.
@@tt128556 last year in the first round there were 5 new matchups from the previous year. And a lot of you guys said those were lame. Make up your mind
We just need to go back to the system that had been working for decades - win, loss, tie. 5 min OT. All the point totals are inflated and it makes everything look ridiculous. I used to love not knowing if a team with a losing record in the regular season would go on a run in the playoffs. It kept things interesting. Certainly with parity, an upset doesn’t mean as much anyway, but not all the changes to the game since 1993 have been good. Some have, some haven’t.
It's nice to know there are 3 points available every game. Having some games dish out 2 vs 3 for others doesn't make sense. Imagine 2 teams passing you on the last game of the year for a playoff position because they went to OT! No appetite for that.
I completely agree. It makes no sense that games are worth different amounts of points. It would never happen, but theoretically with this system one team could lose every game in regulation and end up with zero points, while another team loses every game in OT and gets 82 points.
@@EvanEscher Noone wants to pay to go to a game to watch a tie. Isn't fun for either fanbase. Yes I know winning in the shootout doesn't mean your team is better, but it is bragging rights over your buddies who cheer for the other team. You get excited for wins. Ties don't really make you feel that much better than a loss.
@@crushdavis7048 The NFL has ties and are doing fine. Keep overtime and if no one establishes supremacy, a tie. It's not a big deal. The NFL still has a growing fanbase.
Controversial opinion; bring back the tie. No shootout, 3v3 OT for 10 min, no bonus point. You either take two points with a win, or split them if there’s a tie.
Could not agree more about ties. I'd keep the loser point for OT, as it worked great when there were ties, as it encourages teams to go for the win in OT, instead of playing safe to secure the tie and 1 point. The way it was set-up from 99-00 through 03-04 was perfect. The better teams found a way to win most of their games in in regulation or OT, while the mediocre teams settled for a lot of ties or lost in OT a lot.
I watched ties and hated them. I love overtime and love that the shutout cuts it down to 5 minutes. Regular season games don't need to be endurance runs
@@Heterodoxism Ties actually tell you where teams legitimately stand and give a better idea of what happened. A 0-0 or 1-1 game needing a skills competition to decide it is a joke. If neither team could score one more goal past the goalie in game action, then both teams deserve 1 point and the tie, instead of needing a 1-on-1 skills competition just because we need a winner. And the NHL is not like the NBA or MLB, as it uses a point a system, so the 1 point for a tie is actually meaningful when it comes to playoff positioning. It's a joke to have playoff positioning for the toughest tournament in sports decided by skills competitions. There's no skills competitions in the playoffs. The better teams would know how to get the wins to make the playoffs, and the mediocre ones would be the ones with a lot of ties, with no shootouts to bail them out, and probably miss the playoffs. I recall in 2010, the Bruins would have missed playoffs without the shootout. They played 19 shootouts, which would have been ties. And instead of being 39-30-13 for 91 points, they would have been 29-30-19-4 for 81 points. Also, in 2010, the Coyotes record 50-25-7 for 107 points would not have looked that good without the shootout saving them, as they played 20. With ties, they would have been 36-25-20-1 for 93 points.
I agree with you. I want the NHL to bring back ties. I know that we're in the minority, but it's great to see a visible hockey fan with a big following publicly advocating for our position.
Problem is casual fans don't like ties. And those are the potential market-share the league is able to grab in order to increase the revenue. And with that comes the potential for better on-ice products, which is ultimately a win for all the fans.
I'm with Gabriel. This soccer system crap is for the birds. Hockey is not soccer nor will it ever need to be. Soccer players are better athletes-based on the amount of time each player plays per game. But hockey is, by far, the more exciting sport. Trying to curve it's appeal to the 2 billion people who support soccer is purely a waste of time. For me, the system with ties worked just fine. Granted excessive points is very much like "inflation". The more points you hand out, the more inflated the game becomes. People who somehow need lots of points are idiots. Back in the 1960's/'70's, hockey was flying and it was extremely exciting. Now, i admit-with only 6 teams-the quality of players was at it's peak. But the players of today are better fed, better trained and even have a bit better means of transportation. Why not give the teams a chance to rise or fall based on their competitive spirits/natural gifts? Oh ya, that wouldn't take into account the ability of the league to cheat in the "ball drop" to give loser teams a chance to build up #1 draft picks. Remember, Bet-in-man's job is dependent upon the owners being kept happy! It has become apparent-as time goes by-that ultimately, teams who received #1 draft picks have far better chances of developing long-term championships than the rest. Meanwhile, the shoot-outs require great goaltending and it is obvious that not all teams have great goaltenders-once again, a totally unfair system for balanced play. Remind me, again, if teams can be worth a $1 billion dollars+ per team, why are there not enough great goaltenders to spread out for every team? Remember, I'm only arguing parity. The NHL remains near aa tie with golf and tennis in it's TV revenues. Keep that in mind. I suggest, even Bruins fans, may suddenly be thinking in this manner.
I've long thought about changing the point system to the one described here. At season's end, I calculated the records to the new system. It's crazy how little the standings move each year. Occasionally a team or two will swap making the playoffs, but for the most part the good teams stay good and the bad teams stay bad. In the end it really doesn't matter, it just makes sense for a regulation win to be worth more than a SO win (besides being the tie breaker).
1 point is too much for an OTL. I almost wish we had half points or even quarter points. I'd rather see an OTL as .5 points or .25 points. That'd be more accurate because I don't agree with the current: two overtime loses equals a flat out win = not fair. Have the winner keep 2 points and the loser (when there's OT involved) can earn half or quarter points. Undoubtedly more fair.
Back in the day, they'd have 8 ties already. And the other teams would have fewer wins and points. Should the Isles be penalized for not being good at 3v3 and SO?
Totally agree that the league is pushing parity in every way. I recall the days before shoot outs and OT and really, there were a lot of games where the whole 3rd period was basically coasting with the home team thinking something like "This is a tough opponent, and we're just playing to save a point" and the visitors "We will take a point on the road". Don't want to go back to that. I would prefer to keep the 5min OT, but ditch the shoot out. I'd agree with the 3pts for a win, 2pts OT win, 1 pt for an OT loss.
In football, football FC, the only time they do penalty shootout is in elimination games, not point game no team gets rewarded for going overtime! I think!
I've adopted your term of "loser point" for the point teams get for an overtime or shootout loss. And I've taken it a step further, and I call it the "skills competition point" for the point teams get for an overtime win or shootout win.
I mean, maybe near the end of the season you'd see a goalie pulled to try to get the extra regulation point but thats def not going to be a regular thing...?
For a while after a hypothetical change it would look "strange" with teams outside the playoff spots being so many points behind, but it would also be easier to catch up late season by going on a hot streak with a bunch of reg wins. I'm in Europe where we've had 3p reg wins for an eternity, and I just like it out of principle that you're not awarded as many points for an OT win. Make the stronger team fear the whistle that comes after 60 mins!
Are there other sports where the stakes that are being played for change from game to game? It seems to me that it should be decided if a game is worth two points or three points. All regular season games worth the same amount.
Bruins & Monty? Feels similar to Cassidy. I like Monty but something isn’t working. ‘On paper’ the team shouldn’t be struggling this much. I can blame Neely and Sweeney for no center, but no for the teams complete lack of energy
In the UK the FA cup (knockout soccer competition) they would replay the match if no one could win after 120mins (90+30et) even in the final. Last happened in the final in 93. The most replays they ever had between two teams was 6. Now though replays have been scrapped in favour of penalties.
The good thing is, for my records, I track both 2 and 3 points with one spreadsheet by scoring RWs as three and then saying count a 3 as a 2 for the 3p score. The results arent totally different, but I just think working for an RW is better overall
In my own analysis, I'm calculating a rough games-behind. A larger number of points behind is softened by the fact each game is worth an additional point with a regulation win. There are teams that gain and lose, but overall, I'm not seeing enough of a difference to validate a change. Change the points to 3000 points for a regulation win, 2000 points for a OT win, and 1000 points for a OT loss, and it's easier to see that being behind by 3000 points isn't much. I played competitive Magic for years, with the 3 points for a win, 0 points for a loss, and one point each for a tie. There, a tie is almost as bad as a loss, because the number of rounds is far fewer than the number of games of an NHL season. I prefer the shootout over ties. I also want to note that Nashville risked their loser point at least twice last year (and actually lost it against Vegas) by pulling their goaltender in OT. Though I was also confused why they adopted that strategy. They needed the win for the playoffs, but also needed Vegas to not get a point. It would seem to me that if they were going to gamble their loser point, they'd have done so in the waning moments of regulation, where they could have picked up the two and denied Vegas a point, rather than risking their point loser point after Vegas already picked it up.
If they absolutely must keep the shootout, then put an opposing player on the red line, holding the boards. As soon as the shooter touches the puck, the other player can pursue him. This would at least simulate a true breakaway, and eliminate the slow ice waltzing we often see.
3 points for a win. 1 point for a tie. 0 points for a loss. Overtime is reserved for playoffs. Ditch the shootouts. The 3 points is huge. And a 6 point deficit is only 2 games
I just like it from the standpoint that a team gets rewarded for winning in regulation and it feels weird if you chase a playoffs spot and win resulting in 2 pts while 2 teams also fighting for that spot shared 3 pts between them on the same night. IF you remove any points for a team losing in overtime you'd get the most boring overtime ever as no team will risk anything and throw away the point they earned.
That's why the shootout needs to go to bring back ties. The way the NHL had it from 99-00 to 03-04 after they introduced the loser point was perfect. It gave teams the incentive to go for the win in OT, as they already had 1 point locked up. The better teams found a way to get more wins in regulation or OT and made the playoffs, while the mediocre ones settled for ties a lot, and often missed the playoffs.
I watched hockey back when a team got zero points for losing in OT. I have watched teams pull their goalie when the scored was tied because they needed 2 points to make the playoffs, and didn't want the game to go into overtime.
The FPHL uses the 3-2-1 point system. Ironically, through the first 6 weeks of the season, the league is on a record pace for games that go to overtime or a shootout.
Would it help overtime if they made a rule that players can’t retreat back across their own blueline? I see too many OTs where a team gets the puck, drops back into their own zone and screws around for a few minutes. If you effectively had to go on offense in OT, would that reduce the number of games going to shootout?
Looks like you were right about the Bruins firing Monty. Should be Sweeney or Neely. -as of writing it was reported by WEEI’s Keefe, with announcements expected today or tomorrow
In my home sport, they used to do single match elimination, full-on replay in case of a draw. It took 4 full games once 😂 I feel like if you accept that a tiebreaker system needs to exist then at some point you need to recognise that neither team deserved to win or lose and the tiebreaker is just a better way to do it than flipping a coin or replaying the full match again
I wouldn't mind even going to a 4 point system. The NHL would never approve it, but it could be neat. 4 points for regulation win, 3 for OT win, 2 for S/O win, 1 for S/O loss. I know a lot of fans still hate the shootout and turning them into 3 total point games vs every other game being worth a combined 4 would push couches to try to avoid the shootout. It also better reflects how well teams are playing with the loser point only being worth 1/4 of a win instead of 1/2 without totally stripping away the reward of at least making it to OT.
No team would pull a goalie in regular to try to get a 3 pointer losing a secure 1 pointer risking giving a 3 pointer to the opponent if they would be playing a team in the same division. NHL is the last outpost for the old 2 point system. I truly hope that it changes
NHL rule changes I want to see: 1. 3-2-1-0 point system - 3 points for regulation win - 2 points for overtime/SO win - 1 point for overtime/SO loss - 0 points for regulation loss * 1B. Draft lottery eliminated. New system as follows: After a team is officially eliminated from making the playoffs, any points they earn in the remainder of the regular season will also be counted towards the “draft race.” Leader of the draft race at the end of the season gets first pick, second place gets second, etc. This discourages tanking since the games at the end of a season after playoff elimination now count for something. It also favors teams that are eliminated earlier (worse teams) since they then have more games to earn points towards the draft race than a better team eliminated later
2. Jailbreak - if you score a shorthanded goal on on a minor (2 minute) penalty, the penalty is over, no longer shorthanded 3. High sticking is now just a single 2 minute minor, no more double minor for drawing blood. Considerations for a major penalty if egregious 4. Overtime over and back - once you cross the redline with possession in overtime, you cannot take the puck back to your side of the red line. Becomes a defensive zone faceoff if violated
5. You can challenge a penalty. If successful challenge, original penalty goes away. If unsuccessful, additional bench minor delay of game assessed. (Results in 5 on 3) If no call made in 90 seconds, that’s the equivalent of an unsuccessful challenge 6. Offsides challenges limited to 90 seconds. If no decision after that time, unsuccessful challenge, bench minor delay of game assessed. 7. Goal reviews/challenges/goalie interference reviews/etc. limited to 3 minutes. If no clear decision after that time, defaults to the call on the ice
The problem with ties was watching two boring teams skate around in circles for the last ten minutes of the game, not trying to score. It was what an Islanders practice must be like
i just don’t know about encouraging teams to pull the goalie for an extra point in a tie game. risking a loss for “the format” when the current system encourages tie games playing 5 on 5 aka normal hockey till overtime that seems like it’s working as intended
I respect that folks will disagree with me on this - but I do enjoy the shootout. Crazy idea, but hear me out on this: what do folks think of an allocation-of-points system? Something like this: Win in regulation: 5 points to winner, 0 to loser Win in overtime: 4 points to winner, 1 to loser Win in shootout: 3 points to winner, 2 to loser That way, the relative value of a regulation win is meaningfully bigger than that of an overtime or shootout win.
It’s a sport where teams play a different set of rules in the playoffs than in the regular season. If the 3 on 3 is so great why not decide playoff games using that?
Shannon, Would you be willing to go to 3 wins, 1 Tie, 0 loss, with Regulation Wins as the first tiebreaker? No shootout. This brings up an interesting point, OTW's going from 2 to three points.
I had never thought about the appearance of teams being further apart than they actually are under a 3 point system, makes sense that the league wouldn't want it to look worse than it is. That said, I still belive in a 3 point system because of what you said early on in the video......that being how teams play as time winds down in regulation. I don't think teams would be pulling their goalie in a tie game except for the last few days of the season but I do think that making a regulation win mean more than an OT win will create better play late in tie games instead of the caustious snoozefest we sometimes get. The current system doesnt encourage a team in a tie game to try to win in regulation, instead to try to just not lose which is boring hockey. I also hate the shootout, it takes the last 65 minutes and throws it out the window. Just flip a coin and be done with it at that point.
I'm in the camp of moving to the NBA system where only wins and losses matter with regulation wins as the first tie breaker. No reason to make something like the standings more confusing for new fans. Can't really say the teams would be playing the system differently as they will always be playing for the win anyway. I've looked through the recent standings and they would very rarely change the standings, hell it barely changed the playoff seedings so it's not like it would drastically move around the standings. Stop rewarding teams for losing games because teams that rely on loser points fizzle out early in the playoffs anyway and it always benefits more defensive teams. I loved the tight playoff races the past few seasons at the very end of the season and that would be way more common in a tighter system.
I'm fine with the system as is, after hearing arguments for and against. But I do think the 3-on-3 OT should be extended to 10 minutes in an effort to decrease shootouts. In a league I am involved with, the Vancouver Island Junior Hockey League, has implemented 10-minute OT for the 2024-25 season. Here are some numbers - In the 2023-24 season there were 42 extra time games, 20 of those games went to shootout (this was a league record for ET games). This season there have been 36 ET games at the Christmas break (this has a lot to do with parity becoming a thing in the league), but only four have gone to the shootout. Although not eliminating shootouts, the 10-minute OT has drastically reduced them. I think that is great. But - I am old, even older than THG.
I don't like ties since there has to be a clear winner and loser to me, therefore making practically every game a 3 point game makes sense. 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for overtime win, 1 point for overtime loss and shootout. Not having the 3rd point for shootout should promote winning in regulation or even overtime. Another note is to have the L column reflect ALL losses but keep the OTL column for OT/SO losses.
I’m fine with Shootouts. They are a bit of a novelty and fun once in a blue moon which is how often they are. The average team will participate in 3 shootouts over the course of a season.
As a fresh NHL fan and based in Wales I don't have much authority but I see it as the job is to win the game in 60 mins you don't do that you don't deserve the same as a team that did. So the 3,2,1,0 point system makes sense to me, unless you guys get onboard with draws!
I totally agree about shootouts, it's not a reflection on the teams cohesive ability but I will say as a kid watching penalties I love the drama of it, it was so exciting I think it's a great reward for a kid watching what usually has been a pretty boring match!
Kids with small gardens can put some chalk on a wall and still feel like hitting a ball/puck against it is a chance to relive last night's game!
I like your perspective. Shout-out to the Cardiff Devils.
The problem with the 3-2-1-0 system, it barely changes anything, in the salary cap era, out of 518 different team records, there would only be 9 standings swaps… meaning only 18 teams standings would’ve been effected out of the 518 individual season records. If you convert the standings to a 3-2-1-0 system, you’d have to go back to the 17-18 season to see a change in the standings.
Video: nmuC8iohU88
"And ties"
We had ties before; We think its idiotic.
No, no, no, no. You can't judge this going back in time when the rule wasn't in place. It has been explained many times. The strategy for the last five or 10 minutes of a game is to get super defensive and take the game to OT to at least get a point. If Toronto was playing Florida and it's tied 1-1 - there is very little incentive with a few minutes left to try to win it in regulation.
If you could gain a full three points on your competition, however, there is a much greater incentive to go for it and provide some entertainment in the actual 60 minute game. Even thinking back to the last few games of last season with several teams jockeying for the last playoff spot, it would have made things much more entertaining. There should be an incentive to winning games during the actual game and not the skills competition (shootout) or the hybrid skills competition/game (OT).
@@jeffreym.8957 I don’t think that argument ever held much weight. Teams could just as well not want to take any risk in a tied game to prevent the potential 3 point swing.
I looked at this a little while ago. In the salary cap era, out of 518 different team records, 272 playoff teams and 246 non-playoff teams, only nine swaps (18 total teams affected) would have taken place. In other words, 96.5% of teams remain as either a playoff team or a non-playoff team. This hasn't even happened since the 17-18 season, where the Panthers would have overtaken the Blue Jackets.
Thank you for sharing this data. It validates my thoughts that criticism of the 3-point system is pretty overblown. The parity the current system creates is a good thing in my opinion, and at least one alternative to this system barely changes outcomes anyway, as evident by your data
WOW! so its all about illusion of competition
@@JDAWG2111 No worries, and even further, almost none of these swaps would have made a huge impact. The 2006 Oilers are the only teams that had a significant impact from these cases (they would have been replaced by the Canucks). All other instances, teams either lost in the first or second round, with the 2010 Canadiens (would have been teplaced by Rangers) going to the 3rd round. At the end of the day, the contenders are going to be in the playoffs regardless.
@@poejavelski148Interesting, as I haven't looked that closely at it myself.
Did you find that it would have changed the playoff seeding, perhaps given more teams home ice advantage or changed the match ups in the first rounds. Just curious.
@ I didn’t look that one step further, perhaps I will in the future, but mo doubt seedings would have changed, like for example a 4th swapping with a 5th. However, because there were so few playoff swaps (ie 10th and 9th swapping with 8th and 7ths etc) I imagine it would also be quite insignificant and not a whole lot of home ice advantage changes.
What this video taught me: the Sharks are almost a playoff team.
3:47
9:26 The KHL’s minor league added a rule that I think would reduce the number of shootouts without extending 3 on 3 OT. It pretty much says in OT an offensive player cannot re enter his own zone while possessing the puck, if he does the following face off will be in their zone.
Regulation win = 3 points. Overtime or shootout win = 2 points. Overtime or shootout lose = 1 point.
lose - 0, win in reg - 2, win in OT - 1
The only correct way.
Yup, the clear best way!
But then you’re being punished for losing in OT?
@cavanlyons9537
As you should be.
The emphasis should be on regulation wins. If you don’t play well enough to win in regulation, you get punished by only getting 2 points for the win. If you get to overtime and don’t play well enough to win, you get punished by only getting 1 point.
The system should be essentially the same, except for this. No Shoot out, if the game is still tie after 5 minutes prolongation, each teams get 1 pts, the bonus points goes away.
Exactly. And this worked quite well from 99-00 through 03-04. The better teams got the wins in regulation or OT, while the mediocre ones lost in OT alot or had a lot of ties, and missed the playoffs as a result.
I agree this is the best system
Still not enough incentive to not sit back and take a tie. A win should be worth 2 more points than a tie.
Example regulation win is 3, OT win 2, tie 1 each, loss in any way 0. Or regulation and OT wins are 3, ties and OT loss 1, regulation loss 0.
You'll see teams play trap hockey for ties unfortunately
At 0:50 teams are not pulling goalies when tied in Europe where we have a 3-point-system (regulation W 3 points, OTW 2 points, OTL 1 point, reg loss 0 points).
Can you do a video on the NHL charter flight system? I've always wondered how teams travel around the continent and where they stay.
We have the 3-point system in Finland and I actually prefer the old 2-point system the NHL is using. Keeps the playoff spots uncertain for a longer time.
I think the 3 points for a win comes from soccer/football. They used to award 2 for a win and 1 for a tie but so many teams were playing for ties that in the 1970s and 80s FIFA made wins worth 3 points
Start winning 3 point games and teams can close the gap between team very quickly.
Here’s a crazy idea! 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss 🤯😂
This is the same idea as 3,2,1,0 but removing overtime/shootout. I'm okay with that. Shootout is mostly a coin toss, it doesn't happen in the playoffs. 3v3 overtime is also not happening in the playoffs. So yeah, I'm definitely down with it.
I’m absolutely with you on bringing back ties, I’ve never liked them giving out points for losing a game in OT or SO.
@@abmoha Seems it was brought in with the kids who got "participation" trophies
Surviving till OT is an accomplishment that should be worth a point, and so should be winning the game in regulation. 3-2-1-0 all the way.
The way I think of it: Both teams "tied" at the end of regulation, so they both get a point, then the OT winner gets a bonus point. I think that's the most fair argument.
The league definitely needs to do one of the two options, either the international 3 point system, or bring back ties. The loser point is brutal, and the shootout to decide a game is a joke. You see it now that there's now urgency at the end of regulation from teams in a tied game. The 3 point system qould Change that
Even under a 3-2-1-0 point system, pulling the goalie in a tied game to win in regulation is really rare.
It would only happen towards the end of the season when teams are fighting for that last few playoff spots
The NY overtime merchants marching into another first round exit against Carolina
Possibly. But they could also surprise with a deep playoff run.
@@skiinggator that is not happening nothing about them inspires confidence
@mike.og13 - nope. More than likely, they miss the playoffs altogether.
I can't stand ties. It feels like you watched a long game for nothing when it's a tie. An OTL still stings even with the 1 point.
I'd love to get rid of the shootout. Ties were fine back in the day. Yup...I remember that. I'm even older than Shannon :)
The Islanders are hanging tough without Barzal, Reilly, Pelech, Romanov, and the new signing of Duclair. They are all injured. That team is just tough. I'd like to go back to the old point system. But it is the system we have and that's on Bettman. Not the Islanders.
A 3-2-1 system would also achieve exactly the same number of points handed out no matter what
I don't like the idea of three points for a win, because comparing records before and after that change would be even more difficult. We would effectively have a large case of point inflation.
I do like the idea of eliminating the "loser point", which has outlived it's purpose in any case. It was introduced back when ties were still allowed, and the idea was to reduce the number of ties by giving teams an incentive to go for the win in overtime. Teams would know that if an offensive play backfires and leads to an overtime goal against, then they haven't lost anything because the alternative was a tie, so they would get just one point either way.
Now, with the shootout added, a team still does lose something when scored against in overtime: they lose a chance to win the shootout. So the "loser point" is no longer effective in it's original purpose, and it still may perversely cause more shootouts by causing more games to go to overtime in the first place. How many times, late in regulation of a tied game, do the teams stop taking chances for offense, and just play conservatively to secure one point before going for the second? I know that regulation wins as the first tiebreaker discourages this somewhat, but it still happens.
I would also be OK with bringing back ties, but I know that this is a minority view. But if we are keeping the shootout, then we should really get rid of the "loser point", and simply let a win be a win and a loss be a loss, which was the reason people wanted to get rid of ties in the first place. With shootouts, the "loser point" doesn't serve it's original purpose but still has it's negative unintended consequence.
Only changes I would want is, get rid of the shootout, bring back the 1 point tie, make 3 on 3 ot 10 min.
Make it so you can’t purposely take the puck back over the red line once you’ve entered the offensive zone.
10 minutes is too long for overtime. I say do a 5 minute overtime with no whistles, no icing, no offsides. That would be interesting.
Im with u on the ties tbh the shootout can lead to some good moments but I really just wanna see these guys play hockey. Shootout kinda feels like its own thing entirely.
I simply don't understand why people whine about the current system. It's not like we don't have enough points over the course of an 82-game regular season that we are constantly relying on tie-breaker at the end of the season for the playoff spot. And if you are just an angry red wings fan, two number for you, -37 and 27, that should be enough to cool you down.
Completely agree. And a system that allows casual fans to be more engaged for longer in the season is also a good thing too. Have a buddy who is a Blue Jackets fan, and even if I know they don't have a chance it keeps him following the season for a lot longer and deeper into the season. Hardcore fans know that 6 to 8 points is a big deficit, but it seems manageable to overcome for casuals which is a good thing.
Thanks for the video! A three point for a win system might benefit from ending games in regulation with ties where both teams get one point. Some teams might play for a tie but teams that need points would be more aggressive in the final minutes of regulation. Keep the overtime games just for playoffs, in this system. It's definitely different math and strategies. Also, have shorthanded goals end a penalty.
The # of points you get for a win is intrinsically related to whether you want an elaborate overtime process or not. The reason we embraced shootouta for OT in the 1990s was that shootouts were fun when you saw them in the Winter Olympics
Alright, but here is the thing: the SO only happened from the quarterfinals beyond in the Winter Olympics. At least in 1998 and 2002. Which really makes sense because it's one game, winner advances. If it stays tied after OT you have to decide a winner somehow.
The way the NHL employs the SO is to merely avoid having tied games in the regular season.
@otaviofrnazario yes. But the excitement generated in one was sought to be replicated in the other context, even if not exactly
@@benellison5668 I'm gonna disagree with you on this. The overuse doesn't generate the same buzz. That was the expectation, but there is simply no way to replicate, or even come close to it.
I only saw one regular season shootout that had this effect, the Philadelphia-New York one in 2010. Winner to the playoffs, loser would be out.
Shootouts are not hockey, they’re a skills contest in hockey uniforms.
If you want to spare your guys, 3v3 for ten minutes, bring back the tie, no loser point.
Dont like shootouts, but Id also put 3v3 in the same category t h
3v3 isn't regular hockey either. It's a game of keep away until the defending team makes a mistake. It can be very exciting, if they're going back and forth. But most of the time they're just skating around.
@@skiinggator if you bring back the tie and take away the loser point there’s more incentive to score.
@borisvandruff7532 - No, you get the opposite. Teams play safe to keep the point. The last 5 minutes of the 3rd period of tie games were boring back in the day.
Shannon pointed out that the current system makes it seem like mediocre teams are closer to being competitive than they actually are. This must help ticket sales. I'm guessing this would be the weightiest argument against change.
for me OT is a mess. 3 on 3 is a keep-away possesion game that doesn't exist in the regular 60 minutes, the shootout is a flipcoin that none of the coaches or players really try hard to win, the free wins for shootout games help teams to have records season yet they fall in the first round of the playoffs where the OT is perfect.
Ties needs to come back. 5 on 5 OT too. it will make the parity and wildcard races even tighter
4 on 4 OT was fine and I have no idea why they felt they needed to change it to 3 on 3. I hate watching 3 on 3, it's like if I grabbed 5 of my buddies and we went down to the rink and played pickup hockey, it looks terrible and unorganized.
For some reason they'll use the 3-point system at the four nations face-off. So maybe the NHL's taking a look at it.
I don't see the NHL changing the points system anytime soon.
I can live with the NHL’s point system, as long as we go back to the 1v8 seed system for the playoffs.
@@squidMB why? It’s best on best hockey, there aren’t any bad teams
THG talked about this quite a bit. It really doesn't change the seeding that much and sometimes not at all
Couldn't agree more, getting sick and tired of all the divisional "rivalries", same teams facing each other on round 1 and 2 year after year.
@@BSAnimemy disdain for the divisional format becomes apparent after the first round. It’s true the first round seeding is many times identical in both formats, but in divisional there are only 8 possible matchups in round 2, as opposed to 18 possible matchups in a 1v8 format. Granted, some matchups are dependent on the others and several are incredibly unlikely (ie we probably would never see 5v8 & 6v7 in the second round), but it still offers more intrigue than the current format.
@@tt128556 last year in the first round there were 5 new matchups from the previous year. And a lot of you guys said those were lame. Make up your mind
100% with you Shannon, BRING BACK TIES
Why though?
Its unsatisfying when no one wins.
We just need to go back to the system that had been working for decades - win, loss, tie. 5 min OT. All the point totals are inflated and it makes everything look ridiculous. I used to love not knowing if a team with a losing record in the regular season would go on a run in the playoffs. It kept things interesting. Certainly with parity, an upset doesn’t mean as much anyway, but not all the changes to the game since 1993 have been good. Some have, some haven’t.
I agree. A ".500" nowadays has 90-95 points. It's ridiculous. A .500 team should have around 82 points.
Could be a ten minute OT. I don't care whether the OT is involved or after 60 minutes they each get a point.
"Obviously you're not going to stop the season today and go, 'well, that's it!'"
*COVID-24 has entered the chat*
don't tempt me with a good time!
It's nice to know there are 3 points available every game. Having some games dish out 2 vs 3 for others doesn't make sense. Imagine 2 teams passing you on the last game of the year for a playoff position because they went to OT! No appetite for that.
I completely agree. It makes no sense that games are worth different amounts of points. It would never happen, but theoretically with this system one team could lose every game in regulation and end up with zero points, while another team loses every game in OT and gets 82 points.
Hurricanes broadcasters would agree with you. They font like the random extra point that "falls from the sky" for OT/shoutout wins.
We need to get rid of the shootout
People don’t want ties
@@garyelder4610*SPOILT AMERICANS don't like ties, there I fixed it for you. Ties are totally fine, you probably just have a short attention span.
@@EvanEscherthat’s why the rest of the world can’t compete with the us. They accept ties, aka a loss.
@@EvanEscher Noone wants to pay to go to a game to watch a tie. Isn't fun for either fanbase. Yes I know winning in the shootout doesn't mean your team is better, but it is bragging rights over your buddies who cheer for the other team. You get excited for wins. Ties don't really make you feel that much better than a loss.
@@crushdavis7048 The NFL has ties and are doing fine. Keep overtime and if no one establishes supremacy, a tie. It's not a big deal. The NFL still has a growing fanbase.
Controversial opinion; bring back the tie. No shootout, 3v3 OT for 10 min, no bonus point. You either take two points with a win, or split them if there’s a tie.
@@philtorrez4198 I said exactly this above. Nice. Glad to see I’m not the only one who sees this as a good idea
Could not agree more about ties. I'd keep the loser point for OT, as it worked great when there were ties, as it encourages teams to go for the win in OT, instead of playing safe to secure the tie and 1 point. The way it was set-up from 99-00 through 03-04 was perfect. The better teams found a way to win most of their games in in regulation or OT, while the mediocre teams settled for a lot of ties or lost in OT a lot.
I watched ties and hated them. I love overtime and love that the shutout cuts it down to 5 minutes. Regular season games don't need to be endurance runs
Why bring back the tie though?
No one gives reasons, or addresses the underyling issue of why we hate ties to begin with.
@@Heterodoxism Ties actually tell you where teams legitimately stand and give a better idea of what happened. A 0-0 or 1-1 game needing a skills competition to decide it is a joke. If neither team could score one more goal past the goalie in game action, then both teams deserve 1 point and the tie, instead of needing a 1-on-1 skills competition just because we need a winner.
And the NHL is not like the NBA or MLB, as it uses a point a system, so the 1 point for a tie is actually meaningful when it comes to playoff positioning. It's a joke to have playoff positioning for the toughest tournament in sports decided by skills competitions. There's no skills competitions in the playoffs. The better teams would know how to get the wins to make the playoffs, and the mediocre ones would be the ones with a lot of ties, with no shootouts to bail them out, and probably miss the playoffs.
I recall in 2010, the Bruins would have missed playoffs without the shootout. They played 19 shootouts, which would have been ties. And instead of being 39-30-13 for 91 points, they would have been 29-30-19-4 for 81 points. Also, in 2010, the Coyotes record 50-25-7 for 107 points would not have looked that good without the shootout saving them, as they played 20. With ties, they would have been 36-25-20-1 for 93 points.
It doesn't matter what system they use, nothing will change til. coaches and teams stop playing not to lose.
I agree with you. I want the NHL to bring back ties. I know that we're in the minority, but it's great to see a visible hockey fan with a big following publicly advocating for our position.
I agree. I started watching hockey right after the lockout, so I've never experienced ties, but I don't like the shootout, I would rather see ties.
+1 here! Ties are natural. 3v3 and shootout arent "hockey" for me. Might aswell make em play chess to decide the winner for all that matters
Problem is casual fans don't like ties. And those are the potential market-share the league is able to grab in order to increase the revenue. And with that comes the potential for better on-ice products, which is ultimately a win for all the fans.
I'm with Gabriel. This soccer system crap is for the birds. Hockey is not soccer nor will it ever need to be. Soccer players are better athletes-based on the amount of time each player plays per game. But hockey is, by far, the more exciting sport. Trying to curve it's appeal to the 2 billion people who support soccer is purely a waste of time. For me, the system with ties worked just fine. Granted excessive points is very much like "inflation". The more points you hand out, the more inflated the game becomes. People who somehow need lots of points are idiots. Back in the 1960's/'70's, hockey was flying and it was extremely exciting. Now, i admit-with only 6 teams-the quality of players was at it's peak. But the players of today are better fed, better trained and even have a bit better means of transportation. Why not give the teams a chance to rise or fall based on their competitive spirits/natural gifts? Oh ya, that wouldn't take into account the ability of the league to cheat in the "ball drop" to give loser teams a chance to build up #1 draft picks. Remember, Bet-in-man's job is dependent upon the owners being kept happy! It has become apparent-as time goes by-that ultimately, teams who received #1 draft picks have far better chances of developing long-term championships than the rest. Meanwhile, the shoot-outs require great goaltending and it is obvious that not all teams have great goaltenders-once again, a totally unfair system for balanced play. Remind me, again, if teams can be worth a $1 billion dollars+ per team, why are there not enough great goaltenders to spread out for every team? Remember, I'm only arguing parity. The NHL remains near aa tie with golf and tennis in it's TV revenues. Keep that in mind. I suggest, even Bruins fans, may suddenly be thinking in this manner.
You lost me at ‘Soccer players are better athletes’
I've long thought about changing the point system to the one described here. At season's end, I calculated the records to the new system. It's crazy how little the standings move each year. Occasionally a team or two will swap making the playoffs, but for the most part the good teams stay good and the bad teams stay bad. In the end it really doesn't matter, it just makes sense for a regulation win to be worth more than a SO win (besides being the tie breaker).
1 point is too much for an OTL. I almost wish we had half points or even quarter points. I'd rather see an OTL as .5 points or .25 points. That'd be more accurate because I don't agree with the current: two overtime loses equals a flat out win = not fair. Have the winner keep 2 points and the loser (when there's OT involved) can earn half or quarter points. Undoubtedly more fair.
Wearing the Islanders jersey cause we’re hungry for loser points huh 😂
Back in the day, they'd have 8 ties already. And the other teams would have fewer wins and points. Should the Isles be penalized for not being good at 3v3 and SO?
3 point system or points for winners only in any fashion. OT no more shootouts and have tie.
Totally agree that the league is pushing parity in every way. I recall the days before shoot outs and OT and really, there were a lot of games where the whole 3rd period was basically coasting with the home team thinking something like "This is a tough opponent, and we're just playing to save a point" and the visitors "We will take a point on the road". Don't want to go back to that. I would prefer to keep the 5min OT, but ditch the shoot out. I'd agree with the 3pts for a win, 2pts OT win, 1 pt for an OT loss.
also consider that a team being more points back would also have more potential points to catch up with their remaining games.
0:54 I have never seen this in any European league that use the 3-2-1 system.
In football, football FC, the only time they do penalty shootout is in elimination games, not point game no team gets rewarded for going overtime! I think!
I have watched soccer much more than hockey in my life, and I do like the idea of 3 for regulation, 2 for sudden death, 1 for draw, no shootout
Good video! Agree on bringing back ties.
I've adopted your term of "loser point" for the point teams get for an overtime or shootout loss. And I've taken it a step further, and I call it the "skills competition point" for the point teams get for an overtime win or shootout win.
I mean, maybe near the end of the season you'd see a goalie pulled to try to get the extra regulation point but thats def not going to be a regular thing...?
For a while after a hypothetical change it would look "strange" with teams outside the playoff spots being so many points behind, but it would also be easier to catch up late season by going on a hot streak with a bunch of reg wins.
I'm in Europe where we've had 3p reg wins for an eternity, and I just like it out of principle that you're not awarded as many points for an OT win. Make the stronger team fear the whistle that comes after 60 mins!
Are there other sports where the stakes that are being played for change from game to game? It seems to me that it should be decided if a game is worth two points or three points. All regular season games worth the same amount.
Bruins & Monty? Feels similar to Cassidy. I like Monty but something isn’t working. ‘On paper’ the team shouldn’t be struggling this much. I can blame Neely and Sweeney for no center, but no for the teams complete lack of energy
In the UK the FA cup (knockout soccer competition) they would replay the match if no one could win after 120mins (90+30et) even in the final. Last happened in the final in 93.
The most replays they ever had between two teams was 6.
Now though replays have been scrapped in favour of penalties.
What do you think of the PWHL point system, specifically the three point win?
Ah gotta love my 7-7-5(!) Isles
The good thing is, for my records, I track both 2 and 3 points with one spreadsheet by scoring RWs as three and then saying count a 3 as a 2 for the 3p score. The results arent totally different, but I just think working for an RW is better overall
Do you think giving an extra point for winning streaks a good idea? Like a 5-7 win streak gets 1 more point?
In my own analysis, I'm calculating a rough games-behind. A larger number of points behind is softened by the fact each game is worth an additional point with a regulation win. There are teams that gain and lose, but overall, I'm not seeing enough of a difference to validate a change. Change the points to 3000 points for a regulation win, 2000 points for a OT win, and 1000 points for a OT loss, and it's easier to see that being behind by 3000 points isn't much.
I played competitive Magic for years, with the 3 points for a win, 0 points for a loss, and one point each for a tie. There, a tie is almost as bad as a loss, because the number of rounds is far fewer than the number of games of an NHL season.
I prefer the shootout over ties.
I also want to note that Nashville risked their loser point at least twice last year (and actually lost it against Vegas) by pulling their goaltender in OT. Though I was also confused why they adopted that strategy. They needed the win for the playoffs, but also needed Vegas to not get a point. It would seem to me that if they were going to gamble their loser point, they'd have done so in the waning moments of regulation, where they could have picked up the two and denied Vegas a point, rather than risking their point loser point after Vegas already picked it up.
If they absolutely must keep the shootout, then put an opposing player on the red line, holding the boards. As soon as the shooter touches the puck, the other player can pursue him. This would at least simulate a true breakaway, and eliminate the slow ice waltzing we often see.
I've always liked the idea of a 4 point game with a 10 minute OT and then a draw. 4 points for a regulation win, 3 for an OT win, and 2 for a draw
3 points for a win. 1 point for a tie. 0 points for a loss. Overtime is reserved for playoffs. Ditch the shootouts. The 3 points is huge. And a 6 point deficit is only 2 games
Fine as it is and shall remain!
With 3-2-1 we would track teams based on win percentage- which corrects for games played.
I just like it from the standpoint that a team gets rewarded for winning in regulation and it feels weird if you chase a playoffs spot and win resulting in 2 pts while 2 teams also fighting for that spot shared 3 pts between them on the same night.
IF you remove any points for a team losing in overtime you'd get the most boring overtime ever as no team will risk anything and throw away the point they earned.
That's why the shootout needs to go to bring back ties. The way the NHL had it from 99-00 to 03-04 after they introduced the loser point was perfect. It gave teams the incentive to go for the win in OT, as they already had 1 point locked up. The better teams found a way to get more wins in regulation or OT and made the playoffs, while the mediocre ones settled for ties a lot, and often missed the playoffs.
I watched hockey back when a team got zero points for losing in OT. I have watched teams pull their goalie when the scored was tied because they needed 2 points to make the playoffs, and didn't want the game to go into overtime.
going for regulation win three points could make regular season games more interesting at end?
The FPHL uses the 3-2-1 point system. Ironically, through the first 6 weeks of the season, the league is on a record pace for games that go to overtime or a shootout.
regulation wins would be worth one more point than overtime wins in standings?
Would it help overtime if they made a rule that players can’t retreat back across their own blueline? I see too many OTs where a team gets the puck, drops back into their own zone and screws around for a few minutes. If you effectively had to go on offense in OT, would that reduce the number of games going to shootout?
I'm totally against 3 points for a win as well as a bonus point for an overtime or shootout loss. Each game is worth only 2 points, not maybe 3.
The 3 point system would I think change the way teams played at the end of a "tie" game. I would like it.
I liek this style! maybe consider doing a similar video near playoffs.
Do ties indicate parity or style of play?
Looks like you were right about the Bruins firing Monty. Should be Sweeney or Neely. -as of writing it was reported by WEEI’s Keefe, with announcements expected today or tomorrow
In my home sport, they used to do single match elimination, full-on replay in case of a draw. It took 4 full games once 😂
I feel like if you accept that a tiebreaker system needs to exist then at some point you need to recognise that neither team deserved to win or lose and the tiebreaker is just a better way to do it than flipping a coin or replaying the full match again
I wouldn't mind even going to a 4 point system. The NHL would never approve it, but it could be neat.
4 points for regulation win, 3 for OT win, 2 for S/O win, 1 for S/O loss.
I know a lot of fans still hate the shootout and turning them into 3 total point games vs every other game being worth a combined 4 would push couches to try to avoid the shootout. It also better reflects how well teams are playing with the loser point only being worth 1/4 of a win instead of 1/2 without totally stripping away the reward of at least making it to OT.
with three points for regulation time win, every game would have three points?
No team would pull a goalie in regular to try to get a 3 pointer losing a secure 1 pointer risking giving a 3 pointer to the opponent if they would be playing a team in the same division. NHL is the last outpost for the old 2 point system. I truly hope that it changes
What if they made a shutout be 3 points?
NHL rule changes I want to see:
1. 3-2-1-0 point system
- 3 points for regulation win
- 2 points for overtime/SO win
- 1 point for overtime/SO loss
- 0 points for regulation loss
* 1B. Draft lottery eliminated. New system as follows: After a team is officially eliminated from making the playoffs, any points they earn in the remainder of the regular season will also be counted towards the “draft race.” Leader of the draft race at the end of the season gets first pick, second place gets second, etc. This discourages tanking since the games at the end of a season after playoff elimination now count for something. It also favors teams that are eliminated earlier (worse teams) since they then have more games to earn points towards the draft race than a better team eliminated later
2. Jailbreak - if you score a shorthanded goal on on a minor (2 minute) penalty, the penalty is over, no longer shorthanded
3. High sticking is now just a single 2 minute minor, no more double minor for drawing blood. Considerations for a major penalty if egregious
4. Overtime over and back - once you cross the redline with possession in overtime, you cannot take the puck back to your side of the red line. Becomes a defensive zone faceoff if violated
5. You can challenge a penalty. If successful challenge, original penalty goes away. If unsuccessful, additional bench minor delay of game assessed. (Results in 5 on 3) If no call made in 90 seconds, that’s the equivalent of an unsuccessful challenge
6. Offsides challenges limited to 90 seconds. If no decision after that time, unsuccessful challenge, bench minor delay of game assessed.
7. Goal reviews/challenges/goalie interference reviews/etc. limited to 3 minutes. If no clear decision after that time, defaults to the call on the ice
We need a video of how last year would have ended up with the 3-2-1 system and the no "loser point" system.
The problem with ties was watching two boring teams skate around in circles for the last ten minutes of the game, not trying to score. It was what an Islanders practice must be like
It would cut costs for teams and cut down on jetlag
i just don’t know about encouraging teams to pull the goalie for an extra point in a tie game. risking a loss for “the format” when the current system encourages tie games playing 5 on 5 aka normal hockey till overtime that seems like it’s working as intended
Your videos are great, but I wish you would put the the white board closer to the camera and at a better angle.
I respect that folks will disagree with me on this - but I do enjoy the shootout.
Crazy idea, but hear me out on this: what do folks think of an allocation-of-points system? Something like this:
Win in regulation: 5 points to winner, 0 to loser
Win in overtime: 4 points to winner, 1 to loser
Win in shootout: 3 points to winner, 2 to loser
That way, the relative value of a regulation win is meaningfully bigger than that of an overtime or shootout win.
For me: if you win in OT, you should get 2 points for the win and the losing side gets zero. Then you go 2-1 with the shootout result.
It’s a sport where teams play a different set of rules in the playoffs than in the regular season. If the 3 on 3 is so great why not decide playoff games using that?
The IHL used to go straight to the shootout after regulation
Shannon, Would you be willing to go to 3 wins, 1 Tie, 0 loss, with Regulation Wins as the first tiebreaker? No shootout.
This brings up an interesting point, OTW's going from 2 to three points.
The system that puts my favorite team in the best position is the best system.
I had never thought about the appearance of teams being further apart than they actually are under a 3 point system, makes sense that the league wouldn't want it to look worse than it is.
That said, I still belive in a 3 point system because of what you said early on in the video......that being how teams play as time winds down in regulation. I don't think teams would be pulling their goalie in a tie game except for the last few days of the season but I do think that making a regulation win mean more than an OT win will create better play late in tie games instead of the caustious snoozefest we sometimes get. The current system doesnt encourage a team in a tie game to try to win in regulation, instead to try to just not lose which is boring hockey.
I also hate the shootout, it takes the last 65 minutes and throws it out the window. Just flip a coin and be done with it at that point.
I'm in the camp of moving to the NBA system where only wins and losses matter with regulation wins as the first tie breaker. No reason to make something like the standings more confusing for new fans. Can't really say the teams would be playing the system differently as they will always be playing for the win anyway. I've looked through the recent standings and they would very rarely change the standings, hell it barely changed the playoff seedings so it's not like it would drastically move around the standings. Stop rewarding teams for losing games because teams that rely on loser points fizzle out early in the playoffs anyway and it always benefits more defensive teams. I loved the tight playoff races the past few seasons at the very end of the season and that would be way more common in a tighter system.
I'm fine with the system as is, after hearing arguments for and against. But I do think the 3-on-3 OT should be extended to 10 minutes in an effort to decrease shootouts. In a league I am involved with, the Vancouver Island Junior Hockey League, has implemented 10-minute OT for the 2024-25 season. Here are some numbers - In the 2023-24 season there were 42 extra time games, 20 of those games went to shootout (this was a league record for ET games). This season there have been 36 ET games at the Christmas break (this has a lot to do with parity becoming a thing in the league), but only four have gone to the shootout. Although not eliminating shootouts, the 10-minute OT has drastically reduced them. I think that is great. But - I am old, even older than THG.
10 min 5 on 5 OT. No shootout. 2 pts for W. 0 for L. 1 each for tie.
Penalty kicks in football (soccer) are not about skills, it’s psychology. Good video THG, thank you!
I don't like ties since there has to be a clear winner and loser to me, therefore making practically every game a 3 point game makes sense. 3 points for regulation win, 2 points for overtime win, 1 point for overtime loss and shootout. Not having the 3rd point for shootout should promote winning in regulation or even overtime. Another note is to have the L column reflect ALL losses but keep the OTL column for OT/SO losses.
I’m fine with Shootouts. They are a bit of a novelty and fun once in a blue moon which is how often they are. The average team will participate in 3 shootouts over the course of a season.
Great video.
Completely agree with the loser points.