I wholeheartedly agree.
While I completely agree with you, I don’t see what any of that has to do with shootouts. Three point games have been around longer than shootouts, although I don’t know when the “tied in regulation” points were instituted for overtime losses.
Well, actually, I kind of see your point about how now all overtime games are worth three points, whereas before it was only the overtime games that didn’t end in a tie, so it wasn’t a guarantee that any given overtime game would generate three points.
Anyone know when the three point game was originally instituted? I remember seeing four-number standings back in 2001, so before then, right?
I looked it up. It was brought in prior to the 1999-2000 season.
Cool, thanks for the effort on that.
I always disliked the concept that some games were worth more than others, and BobLibDem’s post made me realize for the first time that the new shootout rule enhances this effect.
Does there absolutely have to be overtime in the regular season? I’d have no issue with all games being worth two points total, ending in regulation. Sure, there’d be ties, but aren’t ties pretty acceptable to hockey fans? (I hate them in the NFL, but in the NHL I find them perfectly reasonable.)
Alternatively, is it too crazy to change games to be worth 4 points? Just a thought I had:
Regulation win = 4 points
Overtime win = 3 points
Overtime tie = 2 points (each)
Overtime loss = 1 point
Regulation loss = 0 points
That way, you get some credit for being tied in regulation while losing in overtime, but not as much as a true tie, since you actually lost. You don’t get full credit – but very close to it – for an overtime win because you didn’t put them away in regulation. Plus, all games are worth the exact same number of points.
Is this idea batshit crazy? It moves the imbalance from favoring a team that lost (in overtime) to disfavoring a team who won (in overtime.) Is that idea offensive to you hardcore hockey fans? Because to this casual fan, getting credit for a loss is minorly annoying. I’ll gladly take the points when the Rangers lose in overtime, of course, but it strikes me as a little condescending. (There, there, so you lost. But you played like a big boy, yes you did, yes you did. So here’s a cookie!)
Reminds me of when the season started and [post=6660922]I called them[/post] “pity points.” hehheh.
Well, the original rationale behind the Regulation Tie(RT) point was to encourage teams to try to win games in overtime. Before they brought it in, teams in overtime would be more worried about losing the game(and the point for the tie) then they were about winning the game. Bringing in the RT point was supposed to make it so that there was nothing to lose. Of course, it didn’t quite work out as planned, because in a game against a conference(or worse, division) rival, if the other team won they gained a point on you in the standings. OT games between teams from opposite conferences were wildly entertaining because teams really didn’t have anything to lose.
This line of thinking became moot with the introduction of the shootout, of course.
Sorry if I caused any confusion. I think awarding points for OT losses is just as noxious as for shootout losses. I just don’t see what’s wrong with games ending in ties. Some of the most memorable college football games ended in ties (Duffy vs Ara) but now the leagues think we just can’t handle the concept of a game ending without a winner.
I think Game 6 broke a lot of the players on Carolina. There was a shot of Brind’Amour in the 3rd period where you could tell he just had nothing left and was giving up. Whether that carries over to Game 7 is another thing, but it was more than just frustration at the way the game was going.
The problem with the current points system is that it “creates” imaginary points. A won game is only worth 2 points. However, a tied game won in OT or SO is still worth 2 points with an “extra” point being awarded to the loser - presto 3 points. Making a game worth 4 points is ridiculous as it would create too wide a division between teams (think of the Penguins…).
My idea is to make a “win” worth 3 points. A “tie” worth a point each. An OT or SO “win” worth 2 points. Then there will never be a created bonus point and each team still has something to play for in OT. I think this is reasonable…
That said, it is kinda sad that the Oilers will have to win the cup on Carolina ice. It would have been nice to win it in front of the fans.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Cane take the Stanley Cup!!!
And damn good game from Edmonton.
w00t! 
I’m in Hartford. I want to hear Brass Bonanza. 
Nobody in the league works harder than Rod Brind’Amour and I’m happy for him. Congrats.
I forgot–congrats to the 'Canes!
Sonofabitch.
A person from Calgary unhappy about an Edmonton loss?
checks the temperature of hell
It’d be nice if Canada could reclaim the Cup. At least Canadian teams have been making it interesting the last couple of years.
I’m sure the 36 hockey fans in North Carolina must be very happy.
37
Those fuckers have a much better market now than when I lived there 15 years ago. A perennial playoff NFL team, their NHL team wins the Stanley Cup…where was this back then?
Sports for me was a barren wasteland at that time. On the coast in the southern part of the state in Wilmington, the “local” teams were the Braves and the Redskins. Redskins? Oh man, that pissed me off to no end.
And now look at em. Good for them.
I think Samsonov had a case of Red Wingitis, where you pass on a sure shot to give the puck to a teammate. He had only Cam Ward in front of him- what the devil was he thinking? Every Oiler chance seemed preordained to fail- two wonderful chances shorthanded didn’t bear fruit. If any consolation, the cup did move a bit north this year. Maybe next year it gets back to where it belongs.