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 at 04:33 PM.
The preceding post may contain trigger words and is not safe-space approved.
North Dakota Hockey:
My issue with the 3-2-1 system is I think every actual hockey win should be worth the same. I don't want to see a team have to decide to pull their goalie with a minute left in regulation of a tie game because they absolutely need 3 points rather than 2, only to have the ENG tank them in the RPI/Pairwise. I think every 5 on 5 win should count the same whether it's in the first 60 or the extra 5. If you want to start dividing points during gimmick overtimes or shootouts I'm fine with that and would much rather 3-2-1 than just 2-1 there, but don't take away points from teams before the actual hockey is over.
So the tl;dr would be keep the current system with the winner getting 3 and loser getting 0 + full Pairwise ramifications through OT, then after OT ends call it a pairwise tie and do whatever you want. If you keep ties rather than adding extra rounds you can keep the 2 point system, otherwise 3.
Last edited by TheRevengeance; 05-01-2018 at 04:52 PM.
NCAA TOURNAMENT 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010!
FROZEN FOUR 2009!
"Like" The BeaverPond's Facebook Page
BEMIDJI STATE BEAVERS!
NAIA National Champs: 1968, '69, '70, '71, '73, '79, '80
NCAA D-III National Champs: 1986
NCAA D-II National Champs: 1984, '93, '94, '95, '97
NCAA D-I National Champs: 20??
Perfect 31-0 in 1983-84
Holders of an NCAA Mens Record 43 straight wins (Nov. 8, 1983-Jan. 1, 1985)
Sooner or later the NCAA is going to mirror the NHL’s overtime procedures. Don’t forget the push to become a stronger “feeder” system for NA professional hockey.
So what matters really, is the question, should a shootout or OT win be valued less than a regulation win? How points adds up for the league is like one poster suggests, as important as points on Whose Line is It.
Shootouts in regular season after two short overtimes (like NCHC, 5 on 5 then 4 on 4 or 3 on 3) to me is fine--most casual fans would rather not see a tie. Come post season, we should never see anything less than full overtime until it is decided.
As much as anything, I would originally say out of conference play should be more heavily weighted. On the flip side, you already hear some criticizing certain teams for a cakewalk schedule--which I don't at all agree with since schedules are made ahead and you don't know for sure who will be strong as well as just trying to fill openings with whomever is available. A big drawback I think those fans don't consider is if you really put too much emphasis on out of conference schedules, teams will really hesitate to schedule certain teams in conferences like the AHA and WCHA if a loss would be so catastrophic to their PWR.
As far as the B1G age rule, I'm no expert on junior hockey but they have a hard age limit and a limit on how many over-agers a team can have already so it's not like it is a widespread issue. Also--so you want somebody to come play college hockey but only be eligible for three years, out of a four year university? I could see maybe declaring the over-age junior players as ineligible in the NCAA but if you do that, how is that any more fair than declaring first round draft picks as ineligible for the NCAA? Obviously the latter would be an asinine rule for the reputation of college hockey to be a legitimate feeder program, but it is all tantamount to political gerrymandering to benefit and target select teams within the 60 some field of D1 teams.
Rules are perfect IMO, I appreciate college hockey for how objective the rankings are, and to me this year's BCS championship game highlights the strength of the hockey game. Let's not gravitate towards football politics. I still can't get over how Alabama got a bye week for losing a game, which is such a huge advantage in as wearing and brutal of a sport as football. Can't argue Alabama's power and reputation in football but I will never recognize their championship this year. At least in hockey it's pretty much written into stone what you need to do to make the playoffs. People love to complain about getting screwed in regional seeding, but to be the best you have to be the best in all circumstances. Can't just expect rules to win it for you
Last edited by UMD21; 05-02-2018 at 12:53 PM.
I wanna go fast!
Somehow the age proposal went right by me a few years ago. It's pretty fascinating to me. Some things I dug up:
"Further, every Division I athletic conference will be voting on this proposal and all Power Five (autonomous) conferences (PAC-12, SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, ACC) have four votes each while all other conferences only have one." So every other hockey conference besides the B1G essentially has it's hands tied and it all depends what the other conferences vote. Now it makes sense how they may have had the votes to support it but they dropped it. One possible reason that comes to mind: first of all ASU is against it so they could sway the Pac 12 on the issue, and what if the other Power 5 conferences voted against it just to spite the Big 10 for being a bunch of whiny ****es. I also doubt many other teams within the other conferences are even considering adding D1 hockey, but I'm sure they realize that they won't be able to recruit rosters full of players right out of high school in California and be competitive.
So I did the research, 17 junior teams, each team is allowed four over-agers (age 20 at first half of season). So at most there could be 68 twenty-one year old freshmen in a year. I don't think that will make a huge difference personally, but the black eye it would hit the B1G with needing to resort to rule changes is laughable. Time heals and I especially think the future is bright for Michigan and Minnesota and perhaps Notre Dame. Resorting to changing the rules for their advantage would tear the scab right off all over again.
Reading the Star Tribune comments, there were a surprisingly high number of supporters (although not surprising considering it's Gopher base) in even eliminating juniors all together. Knowing MN high school hockey, there is a huge disdain for teams that "recruit", or so it seems when talented players leave their home town to transfer into a new school. The problem is that not all of the best players magically live in Edina, Duluth East, Lakeville. A player from the River Lakes, St. Francis, and Willmar's of the state don't get the recognition and rely on juniors to have a shot at college. Just a lot of tone deafness on the issue by many all together. I guess having the highest NCAA graduation rate of all sports is a big problem to the Big 10.
Last edited by UMD21; 05-02-2018 at 02:28 PM.
I wanna go fast!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)