I’m so sorry to hear about your aunt, mnemosyne.
Gosh, I didn’t even fully explain how ridiculous the loser point is. I should have looked further down the standings - there are teams with better records even lower:
- Los Angeles, 27-33
- Calgary, 28-32
- Dallas, 30-30
- Colorado, 29-31
So there are actually three teams ranked under Los Angeles despite winning more games. It’s insane. I should also point out that in the East the 27-31 Panthers are ranked ahead of the 29-30 Capitals and the 29-33 Jets for the lead in the hapless Southeast.
Without unlimited OT I acknowledge that you’re stuck with either shootouts or ties, but really you need to have one or the other. And if you’re not going to have ties, have simply wins and losses, nothing else. It would sure make the standings more attractive to look at, that’s for sure.
And why not just go to a 10-minute overtime and double the OT games decided by a real goal?
I don’t think most hockey fans like the shoot out or the loser point. But wasn’t it brought in to appease the TV people? I assume that is why we have shoot outs. Tie games are anticlimatic for TV, unlimited overtime would annoy the TV people, and awarding a team 2 points and the other 0 for winning a skills competition would be really unfair when each team should just get 1 point.
Hence we are stuck with what we have.
I imagine for most teams their conference position evens out more or less by the end of the season. Some teams will squeak into 8th place by virtue of having more loser points but those teams are just playoff fodder anyways.
Thank you, Guin - we weren’t close and I hadn’t even seen her in 6 years, and that was briefly, but it still sucks. My mom is more upset, obviously, as she spent many years as a kid visiting her in the summers. It bugs me that my mom is unhappy.
Seriously, what are the downsides of the International system? 3 for a regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss and 0 for regulation loss? That seems to be an appropriate relative “success” scale, which is what hockey should be based on. You can keep the shootout to resolve OT (up here, we bitch it’s to appease stupid Americans, but we take our hockey seriously :P), but at least all games are worth the same.
What are the downsides? Why NOT do it - what’s the objection? Does it somehow add an advantage/disadvantage that I don’t know about? Or is the league just plain stupid (well, more stupid)?
I’m watching the Senators paste the Capitals, and despite the 2nd period just ending with a 4-0 lead, Scotiabank Place is a mausoleum and this game is boring. They just had a polite, theatre-style applause because Neuwirth made a save. There was a small squeak of excitement on a breakaway earlier, and the period ended with another round of polite applause. What is wrong with Senators fans (you know, other than the fact that they are Sens fans and so clearly suffering from some sort of mental illness). It’s hockey not the Bolshoi Ballet - you can cheer once in a while, you know?
Bloody Sens fans spend more energy on booing the Leafs than they do on cheering their own team…even when the Sens are playing against the Capitals. I seriously just saw someone holding an “Ontario’s team” sign. :smack:
Did Pardy puke yet? It would totally make me laugh if he did!
I like shoot-outs, but if they wanted to replace them with OT, I’d be fine with that. But I can’t stand ties at all. If that makes me a bad hockey fan, so be it, but I can’t stand a tie in any sport. 
I don’t understand why a team that wins in 60 minutes has accomplished more than a team that wins in 62 minutes. They won the game, either way; why is the winning team getting less credit for winning a game in overtime, but the losing team is getting any credit at all?
Why not keep it simple? Wins and losses. Why do you need a weird three-points-per-win system?
Because the rules of the game are for 60 minutes? If it’s a tie after that much time, both teams have failed to win the hockey game, and now they have to try for some - but not as many - points in a modified format of the game (4-on-4 and shootout). The OT minutes as it is aren’t played according to quite the same rules as the rest of the game, because each team has one fewer player. The losing team gets some credit for not losing in regulation time, same as the winning team.
Going with just wins and losses doesn’t take into account the tie - would you just give one point out to each team? If you go pure win/loss then I think OT should have the same rules as regulation, other than sudden-death. Same number of players, 20 minutes. That’s not going to happen, though.
Then why bother with OT and shootouts (I’m sure you’re fine with removing them, but let’s take it as given that the league never will). So if you give out a point each for a tie, then even if they play the OT/SO, teams wouldn’t bother trying very hard because there’s nothing to work for and they don’t want to risk injury and more exhaustion.
The international system makes EVERY game a three point game, so every game is as important as another and teams don’t start playing for the loser points halfway through the third. There is a stronger incentive to win in regulation time, then modified incentives for not losing in regulation.
I like OT and shootouts, which is precisely why I think it should be wins and losses. You’ve got something to play for.
I despise ties. No sport should have ties.
Shootouts are fun to watch, but I hate seeing a game decided upon one. It is a skills competition, not the team sport which is hockey. I would really dislike the winner getting 2 points and the loser getting 0.
I could go with the 3 point system too.
Craig Anderson is out indefinitely with a deep cut on his catching hand.
Excuse me while I go find the near bridge to jump off of.
He did this making food at home, I might point out. Jesus Christ.
Maybe the Sens now make a deadline trade.
The Washington Capitals meltdown can’t be making the folks over at NBC too happy.
I’m not going to lay all the blame on Vokun, but he isn’t helping things one bit. If I remember correctly, he’s just on a one year contract and will probably be looking for work as a backup next year.
Jeff Carter gets his wish and is traded out of Columbus, going to the Kings for Jack Johnson and a first round pick this summer.
Ovie’s gotten pretty lazy in the last season or so. He’s a talented player, but he doesn’t seem to play up to his potential, or do the work that’s required of him.
Hahahahaha… I shouldn’t laugh, because it sucks for Anderson and I hope this isn’t too bad an injury, but…hahahahahaha…the curse of the Sens goalies continues!
Either a curse, or Kanata sucks so badly goalies injure themselves in career-ending ways just to get out of there.
Which I could rather easily believe.
:smack:
I wonder if these curses negate themselves? If the Sens acquire DiPietro, will he never get hurt again? 
Were they pancakes? 
This is Lehner’s shot to show he’s ready for the show. I’m not worried yet. Murray better not make a deal because of this.
How awesome to see my Canucks take down the Red Wings at Joe Louis Stadium. Feels good.
Too bad it was a shootout victory. It was such a good game between two great games I wish it could have gone the stretch in overtime.
I wish I could believe any of the rumors about the Blue Jackets getting decent players and first round draft picks in exchange for Nash or Carter, as the team pursues its annual [del]salary dump[/del] rebuilding effort.
History shows that the more typical result of a Blue Jackets trade has them getting (in exchange for a front-line player) one has been/never will be, one late-round draft pick and a pair of rusty skates.
Jackmannii - for you and your Blue Jackets, I have a 4th rounder (not so late!), a pair of rusty skates AND…
…wait for it…
Scott Gomez
Whaddya say?
I see the Jackets did get a somewhat usable player and a conditional first-round pick in the trade for Carter, which is more than I expected for their typical salary dump deal.
The conditional first-round pick will probably be expended on another eastern European phenom who sulks and underperforms until he’s allowed to return to Latvia.