Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

    Originally posted by Split-N View Post
    Why in the world would you object to each team receiving a standings point when, after regulation plus OT, neither team proved to be better than the other? It's the only fair outcome. Neither a shootout nor any other "gimmick" establishes the superiority of one team over the other to the extent that it justifies an artificial advantage in the standings. #nothockey
    I don't know if that is what e.cat meant, but I agree with your point.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

      Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
      I can trace the minute I began to lose interest in the NHL to the exact time they adopted the loser point. It makes the standings and the game artificial. Hockey should be like baseball and basketball, just figure the standings on wins and losses. If deciding a winner is so important and the fans love the shootout so much, just give the winner the points and the loser goes home with nothing. If anyone thinks the team that loses in a shootout still needs something to show for their efforts, then they have to admit the shootout is an abomination. What's next? If you manage to outshoot a team in all three periods and you only lose the game by one goal in regulation you get half a point? I mean you almost won and you did do some things better. The real reason for the loser point is it artificially keeps more teams within skating distance of the last playoff spot, because the entire regular season is just a 5 month narrative on the coming playoffs. 82 games are just to seed the Stanley Cup playoffs. Of course the NHL then screws that up, and has the two best teams meet in a second round playoff series. College hockey would do well to copy very little of what the NHL does.
      I disagree. I agree the shootout is an abomination, but one we are probably stuck with. But if a team is tied with another after a full game and an OT, played 5 on 5 as the game is meant to be played, why would you suddenly give all the points to one team based on a shootout? I see it as each team gets a point for being even, and there is a bonus for the skills competition. A compromise for fans who need a winner. For someone who doesn't like shootouts to then say it should decide who gets all the points in the end just seems ridiculous.

      Now as for how points are awarded (3 points for every game v. 2 point with a bonus added for a shootout) doesn't actually matter that much to me. I can understand the feeling that bonus points are bogus, but I can't wrap my head around a three point win either. Just too many years with a win being 2 points.

      And as for the NHL, I have become more interested in the game since they have cracked down on holding, hooking, interference and other penalties that slowed the game down to the point that each team had goons who weren't good skaters just there to fight. With the better rule enforcement, the game has become better to watch. It is a much better product on the ice. To me that is way more important than how team standings are decided. If standings is what matters, just follow them in the paper. But to suggest that the faster, more skilled play of today is less watchable than the goon days because shootouts and the way they are scored has ruined the game makes me wonder why you are watching hockey.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

        As to 3 points v 2 points. It's math. Having a game worth 2 points for a 60 minute game but then 3 points for any game > 60 minutes doesn't add up.

        By making all games 3 points, the math adds up
        CCT '77 & '78
        4 kids
        5 grandsons (BCA 7/09, CJA 5/14, JDL 8/14, JFL 6/16, PJL 7/18)
        1 granddaughter (EML 4/18)

        ”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
        - Benjamin Franklin

        Banned from the St. Lawrence University Facebook page - March 2016 (But I got better).

        I want to live forever. So far, so good.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

          Originally posted by Koho View Post
          I disagree. I agree the shootout is an abomination, but one we are probably stuck with. But if a team is tied with another after a full game and an OT, played 5 on 5 as the game is meant to be played, why would you suddenly give all the points to one team based on a shootout? I see it as each team gets a point for being even, and there is a bonus for the skills competition. A compromise for fans who need a winner. For someone who doesn't like shootouts to then say it should decide who gets all the points in the end just seems ridiculous.

          Now as for how points are awarded (3 points for every game v. 2 point with a bonus added for a shootout) doesn't actually matter that much to me. I can understand the feeling that bonus points are bogus, but I can't wrap my head around a three point win either. Just too many years with a win being 2 points.

          And as for the NHL, I have become more interested in the game since they have cracked down on holding, hooking, interference and other penalties that slowed the game down to the point that each team had goons who weren't good skaters just there to fight. With the better rule enforcement, the game has become better to watch. It is a much better product on the ice. To me that is way more important than how team standings are decided. If standings is what matters, just follow them in the paper. But to suggest that the faster, more skilled play of today is less watchable than the goon days because shootouts and the way they are scored has ruined the game makes me wonder why you are watching hockey.
          How about we ask the question in the other direction: Why does international play utilize the shootout? If it's because of soccer's extra time and penalties, why do they utilize it?

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

            Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
            How about we ask the question in the other direction: Why does international play utilize the shootout? If it's because of soccer's extra time and penalties, why do they utilize it?
            Not sure what you are getting at, and what soccer rules have to do with hockey, but I would guess that most international games are part of a tournament where a winner needs to be selected to move on. And if the tournament is being played in one venue, a couple triple overtime games can really mess up a schedule.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

              Originally posted by joecct View Post
              As to 3 points v 2 points. It's math. Having a game worth 2 points for a 60 minute game but then 3 points for any game > 60 minutes doesn't add up.

              By making all games 3 points, the math adds up
              'Doesn't add up' to what? The math with the other option is that all wins are worth 2 points, whether in regulation or OT. Who says that by the end of the year, if you add all the points of all the teams, it has to add up to a certain value? What matters is that the best team is crowned the conference champion (or in the NHL, that the top 8 teams make it from each conference). I just don't see how one method does a better job of this than the other.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

                Originally posted by Koho View Post
                'Doesn't add up' to what? The math with the other option is that all wins are worth 2 points, whether in regulation or OT. Who says that by the end of the year, if you add all the points of all the teams, it has to add up to a certain value? What matters is that the best team is crowned the conference champion (or in the NHL, that the top 8 teams make it from each conference). I just don't see how one method does a better job of this than the other.
                The idea is the points should be reflective of the percentage of effectiveness of a team in a given season. By making OT games worth 3 and regulation worth 2 (aggregate of course), you're adding more value to games going to overtime. Likewise, if we go the other way and look at soccer, you have 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw, so points get "left on the table" (or they go "to the house" for a draw). If the point is that draws should not be worth a one-half win and only one-third, then so be it. However, by adding more value to OT, you get to the feeling where some teams will play for the regulation tie in order to improve their situation.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

                  Stolen from myself at http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/:

                  It’s time to look at “points” realistically and align them to risk and reward.

                  I’m not talking goals plus assists; I’m talking about points used in league standings.

                  I’d like to see every league game worth five points. Yes, five. I know it’s a vast departure from the past, but points really don’t serve a purpose other than sorting out league standings. Points are merely a standings shorthand, an accounting trick*.

                  If you get 21 wins and win the league title, does it matter if that standings column says “42 points”, “63 points”, “60 points”, or “105 points”? The key is this: You finished first in the standings. No one remembers the points.

                  Here’s my proposal:

                  5 – Win in regulation time
                  4 – Win in overtime
                  3 – Win in a shootout
                  2 – Lose a shootout
                  1 – Lose in overtime
                  0 – Lose in regulation time

                  The opponents will say, “You should get nothing if you lose.” What are they getting? “Standings Points” are just an accounting trick to sort out the standings. You don’t “get” those points to hang from rafters.

                  So what would be the benefit?

                  You’d have teams playing to win during the whole game. A team would actually benefit by winning in regulation instead of overtime. And instead of going into a shell in overtime to get the “overtime point” and reach a shootout you have a reason to try to win.

                  It’s a different approach, but it would make the standings clearer and probably reduce the need tiebreakers to set the seeds at the end of the season.
                  *Points matter as much as, ... well, ... points on "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"
                  The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                  North Dakota Hockey:

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

                    Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                    Stolen from myself at http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/:
                    If you're going to steal stuff, it might as well be from somebody you think is smart.
                    bigmrg74: "You can't drink the day away if you don't start early!"
                    SledDog: "UncleRay seems to be the most sensible one here tonight."
                    All great men are dead and I'm not feeling well.
                    A Margarita! in every hand and another Margarita! in the other hand!

                    And stay off the lawn!

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by UncleRay View Post
                      If you're going to steal stuff, it might as well be from somebody you think is smart.
                      Why wouldn't he think himself as such?

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by UncleRay View Post
                        If you're going to steal stuff, it might as well be from somebody you think is smart.
                        Only steal the best else the risk/reward curve is not in your favor.
                        The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                        North Dakota Hockey:

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Koho View Post
                          'Doesn't add up' to what? The math with the other option is that all wins are worth 2 points, whether in regulation or OT. Who says that by the end of the year, if you add all the points of all the teams, it has to add up to a certain value? What matters is that the best team is crowned the conference champion (or in the NHL, that the top 8 teams make it from each conference). I just don't see how one method does a better job of this than the other.

                          But yet you’re looking to change the method... so you think it does something... does it not?

                          My answer, if we are worried about ties go 3-1-0 and let itself sort out. I hate the idea of awarding extra points for overtime.
                          BS UML '04, PhD UConn '09

                          Jerseys I would like to have:
                          Skating Friar Jersey
                          AIC Yellowjacket Jersey w/ Yellowjacket logo on front
                          UAF Jersey w/ Polar Bear on Front
                          Army Black Knight logo jersey


                          NCAA Men's Division 1 Simulation Primer

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                            Stolen from myself at http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/:



                            *Points matter as much as, ... well, ... points on "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"
                            And some of us think shootouts are dumb. So let’s base it out of 10.

                            10-5-0 for some 10-8-6-4-2-0 for others
                            BS UML '04, PhD UConn '09

                            Jerseys I would like to have:
                            Skating Friar Jersey
                            AIC Yellowjacket Jersey w/ Yellowjacket logo on front
                            UAF Jersey w/ Polar Bear on Front
                            Army Black Knight logo jersey


                            NCAA Men's Division 1 Simulation Primer

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Patman View Post
                              And some of us think shootouts are dumb. So let’s base it out of 10.

                              10-5-0 for some 10-8-6-4-2-0 for others
                              You must've missed lowest common denominator day in math class.


                              I'm no fan of skills competitions (shootouts) or changing the rules (5x5 --> 3x3) to get to a "must have" winner. I can deal with ties. And I'm even less of a fan of "magic points" (the 3 standings points from a 2 point NHL game).

                              However, in a world where we have OT and shootouts, I value a regulation win as better than in OT and a win in OT far better than winning a shootout. That's why I see a 5-point system as better in a shootout world; it allows for discernment in the standings. And, it values every game the same (five points).

                              Put another way:
                              Why should a team that wins four games in OT be viewed "standings same" as a team that wins four games in regulation?
                              Last edited by The Sicatoka; 05-01-2018, 03:33 PM.
                              The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved. <-- Virtue signaling.

                              North Dakota Hockey:

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by The Sicatoka View Post
                                You must've missed lowest common denominator day in math class.


                                I'm no fan of skills competitions (shootouts) or changing the rules (5x5 --> 3x3) to get to a "must have" winner. I can deal with ties. However, in a world where we have OT and shootouts, I value a regulation win as better than in OT and a win in OT far better than winning a shootout. That's why I see a 5-point system as better in a shootout world; it allows for discernment in the standings.

                                Put another way: Why should a team that wins four games in OT be viewed "standings same" as a team that wins four games in regulation?
                                So how is this going to affect national considerations? Are you thinking just call it a tie after regulation? Or do they need to also adopt the OT/shootout considerations and calculate the RatingsPI as fractional wins? Because based on the differences of how leagues do things now, no one is going to agree on a single overtime and shootout/skills-competition procedure, aside from the playoffs' play until someone scores.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X