Jump to content

NHL Point System Poll


weeoiler

Recommended Posts

Hey Boys ... 

 

Just doing a quick survey of the Capwise world of how GMs feel about the current points system in the NHL. Choose one of the three options, or feel free to propose your own idea.

 

1) Keep it the same

2) 2 points for Regulation or Overtime win, 1 point for Shoot-out win, 0 points for the loser.

3) 3 points for Regulation win, 2 points for an Overtime win, 1 point for Shoot-out win, 0 points for the loser.

 

Stay classy, Capwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option 3 gets my vote, with a slight amendment. Biggest thing in my mind is that games should all be worth the same amount of points, rather than having OT games being worth one more point, as the current points system stands. Instead of one point for the shootout win though, any win after regulation is 2 points and Bettman gets to keep the loser point in play for teams losing after regulation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what we want or what would be a  much better  system.

Fact is the current system keeps ( beside  a few exception  from top and bottom team)  everyone in the mix until  mid march which is money in the bank  for the nhl. 

Exemple there was 9 point gap from washington 6th overall to dallas 19th overall or somthing like that

Edited by Vegeta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say 2 points for a win, and change OT to 10 minutes 3-on-3.  Tie after that (one point each).  No loser point.

 

3-on-3 is super exciting... fans love it, and players don't seem to hate it.  I also like that it's a little bit closer to real game action, as compared to the shootout.  Plus you'll almost always have a winner after 10 minutes of it.  Ties will be extremely rare.

 

Of course, I'm also a fan of shortening the season to 65 games.  Playing 10 minutes of 3-on-3 in a brutal 82-game season is probably asking a lot.

 

I never realized how much of a hockey progressive I am... 65 game season, ban fighting, switch to the olympic size rink...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dont switch to olympic rink. Its awful to watch the defense is played so passively its disgusting, none existant forcheck its the jacque lemaire trap city.

65 game is short.  But id see a  a 74ish shcheduel

On a 32 team league  have the top 9  from each conference make the playoff and 1 wildcard series  best of 3  in each conference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, James said:

I say 2 points for a win, and change OT to 10 minutes 3-on-3.  Tie after that (one point each).  No loser point.

 

3-on-3 is super exciting... fans love it, and players don't seem to hate it.  I also like that it's a little bit closer to real game action, as compared to the shootout.  Plus you'll almost always have a winner after 10 minutes of it.  Ties will be extremely rare.

 

Of course, I'm also a fan of shortening the season to 65 games.  Playing 10 minutes of 3-on-3 in a brutal 82-game season is probably asking a lot.

 

I never realized how much of a hockey progressive I am... 65 game season, ban fighting, switch to the olympic size rink...

 

While we’re at it, disband the CHL (make college the only path to the pros) and expand to Helsinki, Stockholm, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Berlin, and Prague. A man can dream...

 

But to get back on topic, I really am strongly in favour of bringing ties back.

 

Edited by RegDunlop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, weeoiler said:

You had me with everything up to "watching less hockey" har! Everyone says I'm nuts for wanting Olympic sized rinks. You had me at enlarge, James. You had me at enlarge...

Bigger rink  leads to super passive defensive play. You dont want that trust me.  The game just  ends up beeing cycle plays nobody over extend its terrible. Also  no more hits since you take ur self out of the play so badly.  I play 3on 3 hockey on  zone sized ice its MUCH more offensive.  Big ice = tight play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the skill level of NHL players would keep the game exciting on the olympic rink.  We think of olympic-rink hockey as passive and wimpy because we only really see it with european leagues or exhibition games.  But I thought it was plenty exciting in the Sochi games.

 

Plus you'd have so many fewer injuries and concussions...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL rinks are shrinking every year due to players and equipment getting larger. Concussions are a major legal issue in the league, and guys are just running into each other cuz there's no where else to go. By the playoffs, we're looking at smash mouth hockey again where a group of guys are pushing the puck toward the net against another group of guys. The larger ice creates the room the leagues craves, let's the skilled players do their thing, and will force players/coaches to do the same. I'd prefer that to the league making drastic changes to the integrity of the game, like regulation 4 on 4 or something like that. They can set min/maxes for nhl rink sizes, and let individual teams do what they want. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i see this has gone away from point system to rink size debate. just throwing my two cents in on that. No owner will give up 2000 of their highest priced seats just to make the rink bigger. So no matter how much we all would want it its never going to happen, Bettman works for the owners, and will never make that change to the NHL

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, weeoiler said:

The NHL rinks are shrinking every year due to players and equipment getting larger. Concussions are a major legal issue in the league, and guys are just running into each other cuz there's no where else to go. By the playoffs, we're looking at smash mouth hockey again where a group of guys are pushing the puck toward the net against another group of guys. The larger ice creates the room the leagues craves, let's the skilled players do their thing, and will force players/coaches to do the same. I'd prefer that to the league making drastic changes to the integrity of the game, like regulation 4 on 4 or something like that. They can set min/maxes for nhl rink sizes, and let individual teams do what they want. 

The thing is it doeant give skilled players any real room,  since  the opposing team plays tighter  then on a normal rink to prevent any sizable gap basicly defense over compensate/simplified their play. On a smaller  rink u can over extend a little bit to open up the play  because  the only way way to abuse that is a perfect play.  On a big rink you have more space   so defenseman play much more  safer.

Think of it this way  because its bigger its actually smaller.

 

Edited by Vegeta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...