My Idea to "Settle" Ties is Still the Best
by Quisp on Aug 19, 2010 3:53 PM PDT
in Too Much Free Time
Email
PrintI've said it a few times before, but since the league is looking at rule changes this week, it bears repeating. Here's how you fix the tie/Bettman-point issue:
- Get rid of the Bettman point.
- Get rid of the shoot-out.
- Five minute OT, five-on-five, four-on-four, I don't care.
- Two points for a win, whether in regulation or OT.
- No points for a loss, whether in regulation or OT.
- No points for a tie at the end of OT, for either team.
Yes, I know, that makes no sense. How can a TIE be worth the same as a LOSS? I'll tell you. Because the league wants to discourage ties. Because it thinks ties are boring. To me, "ties are boring" is a value judgment, so all I'm doing is taking that idea all the way. If you want to devalue ties, give them no value.
You want to see intense hockey? Imagine two teams tied at the end of a game, knowing that if they don't score, they lose. You think they won't go for it? You think the game won't open up? If you want to get the ties out of the game, the solution is not to arbitrarily throw around extra points at the end of the game. The solution is to make ties painful.
Also, think about all those games at the end of the year, games played by our rivals (say, Anaheim and Calgary), where we watch, dreading the tie in regulation that of course gives points to both teams. Usually I have an over-riding interest in rooting against Anaheim, but there's that awkward moment where the teams are tied in the final minutes and I would rather Anaheim win than give 3 points to two teams the Kings are competing with. It's just needlessly confusing for fans to have their loyalties shift in the middle of a game based on the quirks of the way points are awarded.
But. I will really start paying more attention to conference games played by our rivals if there's the chance that both teams could lose.
And there is no way the arena won't go completely bonkers knowing that if neither team scores everybody loses.
Every time I mention this, the idea gets raked over the coals. I understand why. On some days I might even agree. But you have to admit zero-points-for-a-tie is, at worst, no dumber than "no drop" faceoffs.
48 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So basically, it’s the same way it once was, back in the mid-90s, except it’s basically “win or nothing”, like every other sport.
Personally, I just don’t want to see all the 3-point games. It works in soccer, because they play (at most) 40 games. Can’t see that really working in an 82-game league. That would create a DRAMATIC drop-off between good teams and bad teams, and there really wouldn’t be any real competition.
Denis Gauthier sucks at hockey... and life.
If you get zero points for a tie, then you have to make OT at least 10 minutes. I would think a 10 minute OT with the long line changes would result in more OT wins. Of course, you know that your idea has zero chance of ever happening, right?
It would be better to just have the teams play until someone scores, like the playoffs. Baseball can have games last forever in the regular season, why not hockey?
If you enter OT knowing that a loss results in zero points, more teams will go for it in OT to get the 2 points. Then we just have wins and losses. No ties or shootouts.
yes, i know, zero chance.
you’re right about the baseball thing. that would be good. the problem is, hockey is actually tiring; baseball can go till 1am and the guys can play the next day.
Wait till this year.
in my fantasy world where i became commissioner or rules master (or whoever has this power) of the NHL,
this is the first thing i implement. 60 minute game, no overtime. 2pts for win, 0 for anything else, loss, tie. playoff overtime stays the same.
maybe it would increase the gulf between bad and good teams, but really, isn’t the point of standings to indicate how good or bad a team is? artificially leveling the playing field by awarding extra points simply makes bad teams appear better than they are.
my other idea — if fans are so in love with the shoot-out — is to have a shoot-out after every game, and count that point in some other column of the standings, maybe use it only as a tie-breaker or something. Or offer a standings point for every ten shoot-out wins. never mind. that’s a bad idea.
Wait till this year.
I like it.
5 minute OT’s, four on four hockey, no points for a tie.
One thing that would have to go along with it would be 1 minute penalties in overtime…2 minute penalties in a 5 minute OT is just dumb.
disregarding the points system,
what is your value judgment on ties, Quisp?
Quisp...
…why don’t you adjust last years standings with your “rules” with just regulation wins? I would be interested to see if the order would change that much. I know the Kings won a lot of games in the shootout.
Quispie--
Getting rid of the extra point is great for statistical analysis. There is symmetry to winner-takes-all, and renders the season back to zero-sum analysis (add all the wins-losses records together and you have a perfect 0.500 distribution, W=L).
I used to graph sports seasons, and hockey seasons always threw the analysis off…
I’m not “offended”, really, I just think it’s lame. All that team play decided by individual effort. I feel the same way about soccer as well, if that matters:)
Shootouts make me nervous … I just don’t feel the Sharks do as well as they should.
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin
That will change with Niittymaki. He’s got to be better than Nabby, right?
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
I like the shootout. It’s exciting.
Drew Remenda would praise a bottle of child poison if it had a picture of Darryl Sutter on it.
Battle of California
I’m cool with the shootout.
The Spirit of MeatTrain'10!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Aug 20, 2010 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Offended
Because it’s like taking a 65-minute 5-on-5 ice hockey game and having the victor determined by a dancing roller hockey player with no defender in sight. It just feels dirty, and not in the good kind of “dirty” way.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
I agree with Quisp but...
I would do it this way.
1. 5-minute OT, 5-on-5 skating
2. End of 5 minute OT, Start of shoot-out
3. Winner of shoot-out, receives 1 point, loser NO POINTS!!!
This should encourage more strategy during the 3rd period for teams to get that winning goal during regulations and get the 2 points:-)
I like this idea.
However, I would say the winner (regulation, OT, or shootout) should still get 2 points. Loser still gets 0 points.
This is the one I like the most if the shootout remains, the only other thing to me that would work would be 3 points for win in regulation, 2 points for win in OT, and a win in SO get 2points as well, but the “losing” team gets 1 point for tying the game in regulation and OT. That way there’s more motivation to win in regulation by getting an extra point, motivation to not lose in OT because you would get no points, although this would probably mean conservative play in OT to get to shootout and get at least 11 point. Maybe make the OT a 3 on 3 to open it up and make it 10 minutes.
by Throwdeuce5150 on Aug 20, 2010 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ve always been for a longer OT, or play till you get a winner.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
It’s just needlessly confusing for fans to have their loyalties shift in the middle of a game based on the quirks of the way points are awarded.
ugh! this is the worst feeling ever - but I try to get around that “cheering on your enemy” by telling myself I’m more cheering on the other team to lose vs my enemy to win … know what I mean?
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin
I know exactly what you mean
Many times I have found myself hoping the Ducks team down the 5 who was founded on a Disney movie and sports some of the most casual and ignorant hockey fans (trust me, I live in S.C.) in the world will win, or at least earn a point. Admitting it makes me ill…
3 point system
I would much rather they adopt a three point system……..three for a win in regulation…two for an OT win and 1 for an OT loss. The OT should be 5 min of 4 on 4 and then 5 min of 3 on 3…….then if all else fails , a shootout (yuck)…. a team would be rewarded to go for the win in reg. time, but an OT win shouldn’t be worth the same a reg. win and OT loss should be worth more than a reg. loss.
by Pocono Flyers Fan on Aug 20, 2010 7:55 AM PDT reply actions
Yes, this what I was trying to say above
by Throwdeuce5150 on Aug 20, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
if we’re doing this, why even have a point system? 2pts win, 0pts loss makes points absolutely useless. just go by W-L record.
i agree the current system is stupid and would rather see the 3pt system suggested by Pocono Flyers Fan or straight W-L
presumably you use points in order to have something to compare to, past seasons etc.
but yes, of course, you could go to a win-count system, as it amounts to the same thing.
Wait till this year.
And you would still need a "tie" column to account for all 82 games
Quisp, you got a shout out from Wyshynski (3rd from teh bottom):
Always loved the no-points idea
I’ve never had a problem with ties, period. So that’s where I’m starting from.
However, if they insist on continuing this The People Demand a Winner thing (and I grudgingly accept that we’re never going back to ties), I’ve always preferred they double the length of OT and then, if the shootout and OT bonus point must stay, they go to a system where every game is worth 3 points: 3 reg. win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss. (They’ve already wrecked the historical standings, so why not at least make each game worth the same?)
That said, the best drama would definitely be an OT where, if no winner is determined, nobody gets the spoils.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
:-)
3 points for regulation win, 2 points for shootout win, 1 point for shootout loss. Screw overtime, I’ve got a 2+hr drive home and usually work the next day.
My other solution, aside from two-pucks-in-OT, is
strip OT.
I mean, like strip poker.
Unlimited OT until someone scores. But every minute that passes, players have to remove an item of equipment, in order: shin, shin, elbow, elbow, glove, glove, shoulder, pants, cup. They can keep their helmets on. Got to limit those concussions.
Wait till this year.
Ewww!
No1 wants 2 c that!
How about after an overtime tie, each team chooses their toughest guy and we have a Thunderdome, “2 men enter, 1 man leaves,” kinda thing?
I guess the league has to do something to resolve ties...
but everything sounds like a carnival game. Maybe they should just have the players all shoot at the prize board that covers the net with the small holes in it.
End Corporate Personhood.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
