No, I don’t want shootouts to have such an effect. I don’t like shootouts at all, really, and would prefer to see OT. Yes, the odd game would go multiple OTs, just as the odd baseball game goes 17 innings and the odd basketball game goes three OTs. It happens.
But even assuming we’re stuck with shootouts, I’d much rather see the standings reduced to wins and losses. You win the game, or you lose it. “Nice try” does not belong in the standings of a professional sports league.
I am pretty sure they would not agree to shootouts unless the loser got 1 point.
The saving grace of the shootout is that it eliminates the need for the loser point. But the NHL for some reason kept the loser point when it introduced the shootout.
Not sure why the shootout eliminates the need for the loser point. Is it because in OT there is an incentive for teams to play hard since they know they will get a point even if the lose in OT? In other words they don’t have to play a defensive style game in OT?
That point was brought in to stop teams from playing for the tie in overtime. Now that there can’t be a tie (because of the shootout), there is no reason why they would play for the tie, so there is no reason for the loser point.
I think the reason they kept the point for losing in a shootout is that a shootout is not considered by some to be realistic but rather an artificial way of ending the game. So therefore a loss in a shootout is not a “real” loss, thus the 1 point to the loser.
If it’s not a “real” loss it shouldn’t be a “real” win either.
The shootout is not the perfect solution but it’s better than any other way to avoid a tie. I don’t have a problem with people who are against shootouts.
BTW , instead of playing for a tie in OT , I believe teams now play for a tie in regulation to guarantee the 1 point . So really all they did was change the time when teams would avoid taking risks.
Yes, another reason to do away with that point.
The extra point is not going anywhere.
But it should 