Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 121 to 131 of 131

Thread: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

  1. #121
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,500

    Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

    Quote Originally Posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    You're only looking at it from the win perspective. We're looking at it from the other side of the coin. Should overtime or a shootout be valued more than regulation as a whole?
    The argument was being made that the 'math doesn't add up' if some games are worth 2 points and other 3, which is saying that each season has to be worth the same number of points for a league. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't matter. How you rank a team is based on their win percentage. What percentage of the possible points for one team did they gain, not on what percentage of the total points for the league. Each team either has a possible 3 points per game for one option, or two points per game for the other. So all the matters for determining how many points a game should be worth is if people think that a different amount of points should be awarded based on when the victory occurred. But that is different than the argument that 'points need to add up'.

  2. #122
    R!!!!...I!!!!!...T!!!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    The argument was being made that the 'math doesn't add up' if some games are worth 2 points and other 3, which is saying that each season has to be worth the same number of points for a league. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't matter. How you rank a team is based on their win percentage. What percentage of the possible points for one team did they gain, not on what percentage of the total points for the league. Each team either has a possible 3 points per game for one option, or two points per game for the other. So all the matters for determining how many points a game should be worth is if people think that a different amount of points should be awarded based on when the victory occurred. But that is different than the argument that 'points need to add up'.
    They should need to add up, though.
    Say late in a season team A is in first place, one point ahead of two teams (B and C) tied for second. On a given night as the playoff race is coming to a close, team A is playing some random team in another division while the two second place teams play each other. If all games were worth the same number of total points (2, for the sake of argument), team A knows (and rightfully so), that if they take care of business and win their game (in regulation, OT or shootout - doesn't matter), they will remain in first place by one point on the winner of the B v. C game and by three points on the loser. Under the "loser point" system, this is no longer the case. So team A wins and B beats C in a shootout. Now team A is one point ahead of team B, but only two ahead of team C. Worse, say team A loses their game in regulation and B beats C in a shootout. Normally A would know that they'd still be ahead of C and only behind B by one point. Due to the loser point, team A would still be behind B by one point, but would also fall into a tie with team C. On the whole, team A actually loses ground in total because the other two couldn't decide their game in regulation. Not fair to team A, no matter how you cut it.
    Can't we all just get along?
    Always remember... This is just a game we're talking about here. Let's not take it all too seriously.

  3. #123
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Marquette, MI
    Posts
    6,397
    Quote Originally Posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
    They should need to add up, though.
    Say late in a season team A is in first place, one point ahead of two teams (B and C) tied for second. On a given night as the playoff race is coming to a close, team A is playing some random team in another division while the two second place teams play each other. If all games were worth the same number of total points (2, for the sake of argument), team A knows (and rightfully so), that if they take care of business and win their game (in regulation, OT or shootout - doesn't matter), they will remain in first place by one point on the winner of the B v. C game and by three points on the loser. Under the "loser point" system, this is no longer the case. So team A wins and B beats C in a shootout. Now team A is one point ahead of team B, but only two ahead of team C. Worse, say team A loses their game in regulation and B beats C in a shootout. Normally A would know that they'd still be ahead of C and only behind B by one point. Due to the loser point, team A would still be behind B by one point, but would also fall into a tie with team C. On the whole, team A actually loses ground in total because the other two couldn't decide their game in regulation. Not fair to team A, no matter how you cut it.
    However you assign the points, the same total number of points should be awarded for each game.

  4. #124
    Rodent of Unusual Size Patman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    22,919
    Quote Originally Posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
    They should need to add up, though.
    Say late in a season team A is in first place, one point ahead of two teams (B and C) tied for second. On a given night as the playoff race is coming to a close, team A is playing some random team in another division while the two second place teams play each other. If all games were worth the same number of total points (2, for the sake of argument), team A knows (and rightfully so), that if they take care of business and win their game (in regulation, OT or shootout - doesn't matter), they will remain in first place by one point on the winner of the B v. C game and by three points on the loser. Under the "loser point" system, this is no longer the case. So team A wins and B beats C in a shootout. Now team A is one point ahead of team B, but only two ahead of team C. Worse, say team A loses their game in regulation and B beats C in a shootout. Normally A would know that they'd still be ahead of C and only behind B by one point. Due to the loser point, team A would still be behind B by one point, but would also fall into a tie with team C. On the whole, team A actually loses ground in total because the other two couldn't decide their game in regulation. Not fair to team A, no matter how you cut it.
    Easy way to say. 2 overtime losses over two games is the same as a win and a loss

    How many “quality losses” are worth a win?

  5. #125
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,500

    Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
    They should need to add up, though.
    Say late in a season team A is in first place, one point ahead of two teams (B and C) tied for second. On a given night as the playoff race is coming to a close, team A is playing some random team in another division while the two second place teams play each other. If all games were worth the same number of total points (2, for the sake of argument), team A knows (and rightfully so), that if they take care of business and win their game (in regulation, OT or shootout - doesn't matter), they will remain in first place by one point on the winner of the B v. C game and by three points on the loser. Under the "loser point" system, this is no longer the case. So team A wins and B beats C in a shootout. Now team A is one point ahead of team B, but only two ahead of team C. Worse, say team A loses their game in regulation and B beats C in a shootout. Normally A would know that they'd still be ahead of C and only behind B by one point. Due to the loser point, team A would still be behind B by one point, but would also fall into a tie with team C. On the whole, team A actually loses ground in total because the other two couldn't decide their game in regulation. Not fair to team A, no matter how you cut it.
    First, what conference counts non-conference games in determining the conference winner and why does that matter for your example? It is the conference record that determines the conference champion. Every team in that conference is under the same point system with the same number of possible points. So win percentage is based on the same number of possible point for every team regardless of how many points you assign a win. It adds up! In both scoring systems you decide to say a tie is better than a loss at some point (either end of regulation or end of OT) so the team should get more points (one) than a team that loses outright.

    In your first example, you are stuck on the presumption that if team A wins and team C loses, because the old system meant there was now a three point difference (if they were both conference games) that a new system of assigning points MUST have the same results as the old system or it is wrong (doesn't add up). When you change something, it is different. Doesn't make it wrong or mean that points don't add up. Team C only lost because team B the new system found a way to assign a winner (shootout) that didn't exist in the past.

    Second example; you can't accept that a team that is tied at some point (team C) gains ground on a team that loses outright (team A)? While there can be some discussion about what makes sense for when you determine to give points for a tie (end of regulation v end of OT), I don't see how you wouldn't give points for a tie compared to a loss, when the NCAA recognizes ties but not the outcome of shootouts or other post- 5 on 5 OT's.

    I think part of the difference in thinking here is that everyone always pictures the team that loses in the shootout, or whatever the non-5 on 5 process is used to create a winner, is the team being awarded a 'bonus point'. The reality is, both systems really seem to function more like the original scoring, that if tied at the end of the game/OT, each team receives a point for a tie, but because society needs a winner, we'll add a bonus point for the skills competition winner.

    The question in my mind is, when is the appropriate time to call it a tie, the end of regulation or the end of OT? NHL calls a tie at the end of regulation whereas B1G (and I assume all others) don't call it a tie until after the 5 minute, 5 on 5 OT, which is what the league does. NHL felt that when they waited until the end of OT to award a point, too many teams just went into a defensive shell to preserve their point, rather than risk losing it. And by awarding points for a tie at the end of regulation, they were free to use 3 on 3 for OT. The traditionalist in me says it shouldn't be called a tie until after OT, but I see the merit in the NHL approach, and with so many NHL games in a season, can see the benefit in going to 3 on 3.

  6. #126

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    20904/13677/07677/07621
    Posts
    34,027

    Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

    Never mind the conferences, what will the NCAA do?

  7. #127
    2009 NCAA Champions Sean Pickett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    2,283

    Overtime/Shootout Points

    So, after much though on the matter, I have realized my issue is that I don't think the loser should ever be awarded a point. It's the same as having every team make the playoffs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    I think part of the difference in thinking here is that everyone always pictures the team that loses in the shootout, or whatever the non-5 on 5 process is used to create a winner, is the team being awarded a 'bonus point'. The reality is, both systems really seem to function more like the original scoring, that if tied at the end of the game/OT, each team receives a point for a tie, but because society needs a winner, we'll add a bonus point for the skills competition winner.
    So, either reward each team with 1 point for reaching the shootout/overtime and let the winner of the skills competition be rewarded with society's adoration, or give both points to the winner of the shootout/overtime and 0 to the loser. After all, both teams know they may have to win the skills competition and should be prepared for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by joecct View Post
    Never mind the conferences, what will the NCAA do?
    No idea, but in my opinion if the NCAA adopts 4x4/3x3 overtime and/or shootouts then they should count the results of 4x4/3x3 overtime and/or shootouts as wins and losses. Again, both teams would know they may have to win the skills competition and should be prepared for it.

    Sean
    Women's Hockey East Champions 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2010
    Men's NCAA Champions 2009, 1995, 1978, 1972, 1971

    Watch BU Hockey highlights
    NCAA Hockey Financials
    Women's Division I Longest Hockey Games

  8. #128
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,500

    Re: Overtime/Shootout Points

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Pickett View Post
    So, after much though on the matter, I have realized my issue is that I don't think the loser should ever be awarded a point. It's the same as having every team make the playoffs.

    So, either reward each team with 1 point for reaching the shootout/overtime and let the winner of the skills competition be rewarded with society's adoration, or give both points to the winner of the shootout/overtime and 0 to the loser. After all, both teams know they may have to win the skills competition and should be prepared for it.

    No idea, but in my opinion if the NCAA adopts 4x4/3x3 overtime and/or shootouts then they should count the results of 4x4/3x3 overtime and/or shootouts as wins and losses. Again, both teams would know they may have to win the skills competition and should be prepared for it.

    Sean
    For now, the NCAA sees a game tied at the end of overtime as a tie (traditional scoring method), 1 point for each team. Conferences are free to do what they want after that. But they need to give each team 1 point in the eyes of the NCAA. So I assume conferences can't have a different scoring system altogether. They can add a point to the winner of the skills competition (SO, 4 on 4, 3 on 3, etc.) for conference standings.

    I personally don't want to see all the points go to a team that is tied with another after 65 minutes of play because they scored another goal in a shootout. (I would prefer it just end in a tie altogether, but don't see us going back to that.) Beyond that, I don't have a strong opinion on how many points should be awarded.

  9. #129
    Made in the USA
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    44,517

    Re: Overtime/Shootout Points

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    For now, the NCAA sees a game tied at the end of overtime as a tie (traditional scoring method), 1 point for each team. Conferences are free to do what they want after that. But they need to give each team 1 point in the eyes of the NCAA. So I assume conferences can't have a different scoring system altogether. They can add a point to the winner of the skills competition (SO, 4 on 4, 3 on 3, etc.) for conference standings.

    I personally don't want to see all the points go to a team that is tied with another after 65 minutes of play because they scored another goal in a shootout. (I would prefer it just end in a tie altogether, but don't see us going back to that.) Beyond that, I don't have a strong opinion on how many points should be awarded.
    Technically, the NCAA doesn't award points; they define a tie as "one-half win and one-half loss". Which means, all of the bases are around the win percentage. That is why it is imperative that every game, regardless of how it ends, is given an equal weighting for national consideration.
    It was an honor to present your colors, RPI. Let's Go 'TUTE!
    May 14th, 2011, 11:00 PM ET: 2147483647

    Quote Originally Posted by Rover View Post
    I'm not happy about it either, but Flag is correct (cue the Twilight Zone music!).
    Quote Originally Posted by French Rage View Post
    Ahh crap I agree exactly with what FlagDude said.
    Quote Originally Posted by jericho on rpitv's chat
    I never thought I would say this, but you are right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    And yet, even if Flaggy is complete tinfoil hat, every day it looks closer and closer to the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by burd View Post
    So flaggy: you win.

  10. #130
    R!!!!...I!!!!!...T!!!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    1,864

    Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

    Quote Originally Posted by Koho View Post
    First, what conference counts non-conference games in determining the conference winner and why does that matter for your example? It is the conference record that determines the conference champion. Every team in that conference is under the same point system with the same number of possible points. So win percentage is based on the same number of possible point for every team regardless of how many points you assign a win. It adds up! In both scoring systems you decide to say a tie is better than a loss at some point (either end of regulation or end of OT) so the team should get more points (one) than a team that loses outright.

    In your first example, you are stuck on the presumption that if team A wins and team C loses, because the old system meant there was now a three point difference (if they were both conference games) that a new system of assigning points MUST have the same results as the old system or it is wrong (doesn't add up). When you change something, it is different. Doesn't make it wrong or mean that points don't add up. Team C only lost because team B the new system found a way to assign a winner (shootout) that didn't exist in the past.

    Second example; you can't accept that a team that is tied at some point (team C) gains ground on a team that loses outright (team A)? While there can be some discussion about what makes sense for when you determine to give points for a tie (end of regulation v end of OT), I don't see how you wouldn't give points for a tie compared to a loss, when the NCAA recognizes ties but not the outcome of shootouts or other post- 5 on 5 OT's.

    I think part of the difference in thinking here is that everyone always pictures the team that loses in the shootout, or whatever the non-5 on 5 process is used to create a winner, is the team being awarded a 'bonus point'. The reality is, both systems really seem to function more like the original scoring, that if tied at the end of the game/OT, each team receives a point for a tie, but because society needs a winner, we'll add a bonus point for the skills competition winner.

    The question in my mind is, when is the appropriate time to call it a tie, the end of regulation or the end of OT? NHL calls a tie at the end of regulation whereas B1G (and I assume all others) don't call it a tie until after the 5 minute, 5 on 5 OT, which is what the league does. NHL felt that when they waited until the end of OT to award a point, too many teams just went into a defensive shell to preserve their point, rather than risk losing it. And by awarding points for a tie at the end of regulation, they were free to use 3 on 3 for OT. The traditionalist in me says it shouldn't be called a tie until after OT, but I see the merit in the NHL approach, and with so many NHL games in a season, can see the benefit in going to 3 on 3.
    Ok. It seems like I've confused you. I don't have the time to read this enough times to figure out what you're talking about.
    To put it a different, less specific way... I was just making the point that in the NHL point system, two teams that go beyond regulation in a given game can pile up a combined total of 3 points on their competition, while two other teams that finish in regulation can only get a total of 2 points. Not fair. Games need to all be worth the same number of points.
    As far as conference vs. non-conference... Obviously I was talking about conference or division standings, not national rankings.
    I'm also against any system that encourages teams at any time of the game to not try to win. I know they were trying to eliminate the teams sitting on ties through OT to avoid losing the one point. Unfortunately they created a situation where teams can sit on ties through the last 5, 10, 15, or whatever minutes of regulation knowing that they can guarantee one point and still have a shot at the second. It can make for boring late game hockey at times.
    Can't we all just get along?
    Always remember... This is just a game we're talking about here. Let's not take it all too seriously.

  11. #131
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,500

    Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

    Quote Originally Posted by TigerFan86-87 View Post
    Ok. It seems like I've confused you. I don't have the time to read this enough times to figure out what you're talking about.
    To put it a different, less specific way... I was just making the point that in the NHL point system, two teams that go beyond regulation in a given game can pile up a combined total of 3 points on their competition, while two other teams that finish in regulation can only get a total of 2 points. Not fair. Games need to all be worth the same number of points.
    WHY? Why do the points have to add up the same in two games? What is 'not fair'? You haven't explained that. A given team's record is based on the percentage of possible points they gain. Maximum they can achieve is twice the number of games they play. It doesn't matter if the game ends in regulation or later. A team can only get a maximum of 2 points. That is what matters. Every team is under the same rule. Make it to the end of the game tied and you get a point more than a team that is behind after 60 minutes. Seems like the team that managed to stay tied maybe deserves a point for doing better than the team that lost in regulation. But you are saying that is not fair. It is just a different way of scoring, not something that is not fair. How many points are awarded in a game doesn't affect any of this.

    The argument about what sort of play it encourages is different than what is fair, and to some degree a matter of opinion, since it is hard to prove. Having watched a lot more NHL hockey in the last few years than I used to, I can't say I have the impression that teams are trying to protect ties towards the end of the game. And I don't know anyone else who has said they observe that. If anything, I think it has the opposite effect. If you are a team trying to distance yourself from an opponent in the standings, why would you try to hold on to MAYBE get an extra point in an uncertain 3-on-3 or shootout, when winning in regulation puts you 2 points up on your opponenet?

    I'm not so sure I am the one who is confused.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •