Views
497
Comments
112
  • 03/11/2013, 02:26PM ET

Hockey standings

Outlaw... (330-270-74) vs Bigalke (147-42-16)
1
Votes
1
Votes
1
Votes
1
Votes


Good luck Mr Alke.

I'm not a follower of hockey, I've watched maybe 2 games from beginning to end, but as a sports fan in general, I am strongly opposed to rewarding a loser, which is why the points system that the NHL uses to determine the season standings makes no sense to me.

As far as I'm concerned a loss is a loss, no matter if the game lasts 15 hours, or is forfeited before it starts. Imagine if the NFL, MLB or NBA rewarded what is essentially half a win to a team that loses in OT/Extra innings.

I think the NHL should scrap their points system and use the win-loss record to determine standings instead of a points system.

The win-loss system is a lot more simple, it's the system that all other professional team sports league in the US use, and it's the one that most sports fans know.

I think the fact that a team with a worse record can be ahead of another team in its division with a better record simply because the team has been in a lot of overtime affairs is a bit ridiculous.

If you have the best record in the division, you should be worrying about how many games ahead of your closest competition you are, not how many points ahead you are.


The problem is not points themselves; the problem is this rather modern infatuation with determining a winner at all costs. The points became garbled only when we decided that being level after 60 minutes wasn't enough to declare a draw.

A regular season is a leveling ground to determine who enters the postseason; we shouldn't need a nightly winner to get there. If one team proves superior after sixty, they've earned two points while the other team gets nothing. If they're deadlocked, split the points and move on. By the end of the season, every team has played exactly 82 hours and the standings will settle out who makes the quest for the Stanley Cup.

Hockey is physically taxing, with as much concussion risk as football. Why prolong the minutes on the ice just to contrive a winner by any means necessary? It also requires aerobic stamina to an extent no other physical sport asks.

It comes down to this: would you rather wear out players in the regular season just to sort things out by wins and losses or have as many players as possible healthy for the playoffs? A point system and 60-minute contests is the fairest way to determine regular-season standings...


Ties are a terrible thing, and I fully understand why the NHL wants to do anything in their power to prevent ties from happening. From an outsiders perspective, a sport where ties are commonplace just doesn't seem appealing to me. When I sit down to watch a game, I want to know that there's at least a 99% chance that the game will have a decided winner and loser.


The TD isn't about whether or not the NHL should bring back the old points system, or bring back ties though, it's about ditching the points system and going with the win-loss record determining standings.

It really doesn't matter if ties are brought back or not, the fact the a professional team sports league uses a points system instead of wins and losses is a bit ridiculous to me. Where I come from, a win is a win, a loss is a loss. There's no need for a points system.

And if the points system is a must, why are they rewarding a losing team in OT? When you lose, you should get absolutely nothing regardless of how close of a game you played and how good of a fight you put up.


"The TD isn't about"... arguing different policies to see which would be more viable and valuable for hockey? YOU are arguing that scrapping the points system for wins and losses alone is the best method; you still have to refute MY argument, though, Outlaw. Don't try to obfuscate the protocol of debating.

All you have done to counter my claims is to denigrate draws and discuss the current system. What you haven't done is show how having some games go into multiple overtimes (or, conversely, a shootout that removes the win-loss decision from game action) is preferable in the regular season.

You failed to answer the question at the heart of my opening argument. Is figuring out a winner at any cost more important than athlete health? Is it fair to force some teams to play far more than 82 hours over the course of a regular season solely for the sake of YOU wanting a winner every time?

I reiterate that a point system and a set time limit on regular-season games is the most equitable way of determining playoff standings. Keep the sudden death for the Stanley Cup bracket, for only there are wins and losses integral to the experience...

Comments (112) Add A Comment

Comment #1 has been removed
March 11, 2013  02:34 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Being "2.5 games" out of first place sounds equally as dumb, doesn't it?

March 11, 2013  02:38 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#2):
Originally posted 02:34 PM ET  03.11 by BM.

Being "2.5 games" out of first place sounds equally as dumb, doesn't it?

Not really, because at the end of the season, there are no half games, and that half game will disappear whenever one of the teams plays when the other has the day off.

Comment #4 has been removed
Comment #5 has been removed
March 11, 2013  02:42 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#3):
Originally posted 02:38 PM ET  03.11 by Outlaw...

Not really, because at the end of the season, there are no half games, and that half game will disappear whenever one of the teams plays when the other has the day off.

I'm just saying, what if a team is half a game out of first place? Is there a chance that they can be in first place once the 5th inning of their game starts? Nope.

March 11, 2013  02:43 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#5):
Originally posted 02:41 PM ET  03.11 by Flambo Gus

Pretty much, except in the rare case of an NFL tie.

True, but they don't happen often enough to change the meaning of what I said.

Comment #8 has been removed
March 11, 2013  02:47 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#6):
Originally posted 02:42 PM ET  03.11 by BM.

I'm just saying, what if a team is half a game out of first place? Is there a chance that they can be in first place once the 5th inning of their game starts? Nope.

Who cares?

After 162 games, you'll see no half game increments in the standings. Half games in the standings are used when teams have played an uneven amount of games, and the half game will be gone once when team plays while the other has the day off. In hockey, they reward losers.

March 11, 2013  02:48 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#8):
Originally posted 02:43 PM ET  03.11 by Flambo Gus

Other than nostalgia and the "that's the way its always been," what's stopping the NHL from using W/L since they no longer have ties?

They just changed the points system recently, so nostalgia has nothing to do with it.

OTL never counted as a point until 2005. It was 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss.

March 11, 2013  02:49 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#9):
Originally posted 02:47 PM ET  03.11 by Outlaw...

Who cares?After 162 games, you'll see no half game increments in the standings. Half games in the standings are used when teams have played an uneven amount of games, and the half game will be gone once when team plays while the other has the day off. In hockey, they reward losers.

Like I care.

Comment #12 has been removed
Comment #13 has been removed
Comment #14 has been removed
March 11, 2013  02:54 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#13):
Originally posted 02:50 PM ET  03.11 by Flambo Gus

But now its 2 points for regulation W, 2 points of OTW, 1 point for OTL, and 0 for a L.Why not scrap the 1 point for OTL's and use W/L like a real sport?

2 points for a shootout win also. Any win gets you 2 points.

I wish they would just get rid of the shootout and go back to 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss.

March 11, 2013  02:55 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#14):
Originally posted 02:52 PM ET  03.11 by Flambo Gus

Why not 4 points for a win, 3 points for an overtime win, 2 points for an overtime loss, and 1 point for a loss? Because, shucks, they showed up and tried their hardest, so we'll reward them, even though they lost.

You're an idiot.

March 11, 2013  02:56 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

I would be in favor of (assuming the shootout stays)

3 points for a regulation win
2 points for an overtime/shootout win
1 point for an overtime/shootout loss
0 for a regulation loss

As long as they are giving points for overtime losses, they might as well reward teams for getting it done in regulation.

Comment #18 has been removed
March 11, 2013  03:00 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE
QUOTE(#18):
Originally posted 02:57 PM ET  03.11 by Flambo Gus

Why?What's so special about losing in OT as opposed to losing in regulation?

You wouldn't understand if you've never played ice hockey.

 
March 11, 2013  03:01 PM ET
Report Abuse | QUOTE

Leaning heavily to the left.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Leaderboard

  Fan W L T Win %
1 OJ Simpson 48 11 4 79.4%
2 Bloggers Needed 1094 336 89 75.0%
3 JimJ77 Best in the World! 129 53 26 68.3%
4 :CubanM... 62 27 7 68.2%
5 Olderth... 84 35 17 68.0%
6 Marlins Fan 146 66 32 66.4%
7 Argos. 174 103 26 61.7%
8 J-Business 91 73 24 54.8%
9 PCH-R. Barber best BUC eva 925 1535 406 39.4%
10 Highway... 170 813 53 19.0%

The Si.com Cover Hub Go to the Cover Hub

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Could Cavs trade entire draft for shot at Nerlens Noel?
    Views
    4223
    Comments
    555
  2. 2
    No lock for Lakers, Howard intrigued by Houston
    Views
    1004
    Comments
    428
  3. 3
    Mattingly won't last the week
    Views
    5490
    Comments
    131
  4. 4
    Redskin fans buy RGIII's entire wedding registry
    Views
    14923
    Comments
    100
  5. 5
    Report: Ex-Miami coach says unreported SEC violations far worse
    Views
    13393
    Comments
    67

Most Active Users

Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns

  1. 1
    W_A_M_U?
  2. 2
    Em Em Aye
  3. 3
    dc packer backer
  4. 4
    BM.
  5. 5
    roamer

Blogs