I'm a staunch opponent of the lower point. I don't think a team deserves shit for losing. If you subtracted the participation points from the equation this playoff run would look somewhat different, ie LA. This may sound like sour grapes, its not, for the life of me I can't understand why a losing team should get anything. There are no loser points in the playoffs yet without them some teams wouldn't make the dance at all,baffling.

BlueinNy wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:51 am I'm a staunch opponent of the lower point. I don't think a team deserves shit for losing. If you subtracted the participation points from the equation this playoff run would look somewhat different, ie LA. This may sound like sour grapes, its not, for the life of me I can't understand why a losing team should get anything. There are no loser points in the playoffs yet without them some teams wouldn't make the dance at all,baffling.

One point for winning in OT is all you should get... the only problem with this is injuries will go up, which is why the loser point was originally introduced.

CaptSMRT wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 11:04 am

BlueinNy wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:51 am I'm a staunch opponent of the lower point. I don't think a team deserves shit for losing. If you subtracted the participation points from the equation this playoff run would look somewhat different, ie LA. This may sound like sour grapes, its not, for the life of me I can't understand why a losing team should get anything. There are no loser points in the playoffs yet without them some teams wouldn't make the dance at all,baffling.

One point for winning in OT is all you should get... the only problem with this is injuries will go up, which is why the loser point was originally introduced.

Why do you think injuries would go up?

BlueinNy wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:51 am I'm a staunch opponent of the lower point. I don't think a team deserves shit for losing. If you subtracted the participation points from the equation this playoff run would look somewhat different, ie LA. This may sound like sour grapes, its not, for the life of me I can't understand why a losing team should get anything. There are no loser points in the playoffs yet without them some teams wouldn't make the dance at all,baffling.

Getting rid of ties in favor of some weird gimmick OT that just involves a guy skating all the way into the zone then all the way out of the zone then back in and if that doesn't work out, screw it lets do a shootout is another Bettman masterclass.

The loser point was supposed to provide teams a safety net so they would "go for it" in OT but I'm not sure how you can and can not go for it in 3 on 3 scrimmage. You either have the puck or you don't.

I think it all boils down to 1 thing, did you score more goals than your opponent, if not you lost and then why would you deserve anything but a long quiet trip to the next rink. When you look at Boston they are barely above .500 same with LA, yet because of the participation points they are near the top of the standings with all those losses. Insanity.

It's just a stupid method to tighten up the standings to make teams look more competitive than they are. The good teams still get their two points but the teams that suck get the loser point to keep pace.

Bring back 60 minute games and ties.instead.

Ties are boring to the casual fan, and so is 'playing not to lose' in OT. With so many entertainment options at people's fingertips, there's a higher percentage of 'casual' fans than ever. More and more fans of any sport tune in for the 'highlight reel' plays, and a 1-1 tie doesn't generate much in the way of highlights to keep the buzz going.

I think 3-on-3 OT and shootouts are kinda bogus, too, but if they draw more fans to the game in general, I'll grin and bear it. What else could make the game more exciting? Maybe a 'shot (attempt) clock' that starts once a team enters the offensive zone? Widening the nets? Passes from the offensive half of the neutral zone back to the defensive zone (across two lines) are called for icing ('reverse icing?') unless played by the goalie?

BlueinNy wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 11:12 am

CaptSMRT wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 11:04 am

BlueinNy wrote: Sun Mar 10, 2024 10:51 am I'm a staunch opponent of the lower point. I don't think a team deserves shit for losing. If you subtracted the participation points from the equation this playoff run would look somewhat different, ie LA. This may sound like sour grapes, its not, for the life of me I can't understand why a losing team should get anything. There are no loser points in the playoffs yet without them some teams wouldn't make the dance at all,baffling.

One point for winning in OT is all you should get... the only problem with this is injuries will go up, which is why the loser point was originally introduced.

Why do you think injuries would go up?

As the season goes on... teams will push players to win more games instead of taking the loser point... the law of averages dictates injuries will go up.

Loser points were fine when 3 on 3 was exciting. I don't think anyone who's watched 3 on 3 over the last few seasons can say it's exciting at all. The loser point was very much created to give the illusion of tighter standings and keep more teams in the playoff race, but the funny thing is it accomplishes the opposite. Sure it artificially inflates point totals, but it also makes it much more difficult to actually make up any ground since good teams will be able to take games to OT and at least get 1 point just as often or more than teams lower than them in the standings. Every game should be worth the same amount of points. I don't care if you go back to ties or if you switch to a 3-2-1-0 system but having certain games award 50% more points than others is a farce.

Also, hot take express here....3 on 3 is just as much skill contest carnival hockey as the shootout. If you play a regular hockey game, you're much more likely to see a penalty shot than you are to see even a second of 3 on 3 hockey. Now kindly get off my lawn.

Dave's a mess wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:18 am Loser points were fine when 3 on 3 was exciting. I don't think anyone who's watched 3 on 3 over the last few seasons can say it's exciting at all. The loser point was very much created to give the illusion of tighter standings and keep more teams in the playoff race, but the funny thing is it accomplishes the opposite. Sure it artificially inflates point totals, but it also makes it much more difficult to actually make up any ground since good teams will be able to take games to OT and at least get 1 point just as often or more than teams lower than them in the standings. Every game should be worth the same amount of points. I don't care if you go back to ties or if you switch to a 3-2-1-0 system but having certain games award 50% more points than others is a farce.

Also, hot take express here....3 on 3 is just as much skill contest carnival hockey as the shootout. If you play a regular hockey game, you're much more likely to see a penalty shot than you are to see even a second of 3 on 3 hockey. Now kindly get off my lawn.

I agree with this sentiment. I don't think 3 on 3 hockey has grown the game to the casual fan thats sitting around dying for a game to get to OT to witness it. If it was so great, they'd just make the whole game 3 on 3 or at least keep the rule for the playoffs.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:27 am

Dave's a mess wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:18 am Loser points were fine when 3 on 3 was exciting. I don't think anyone who's watched 3 on 3 over the last few seasons can say it's exciting at all. The loser point was very much created to give the illusion of tighter standings and keep more teams in the playoff race, but the funny thing is it accomplishes the opposite. Sure it artificially inflates point totals, but it also makes it much more difficult to actually make up any ground since good teams will be able to take games to OT and at least get 1 point just as often or more than teams lower than them in the standings. Every game should be worth the same amount of points. I don't care if you go back to ties or if you switch to a 3-2-1-0 system but having certain games award 50% more points than others is a farce.

Also, hot take express here....3 on 3 is just as much skill contest carnival hockey as the shootout. If you play a regular hockey game, you're much more likely to see a penalty shot than you are to see even a second of 3 on 3 hockey. Now kindly get off my lawn.

I agree with this sentiment. I don't think 3 on 3 hockey has grown the game to the casual fan thats sitting around dying for a game to get to OT to witness it. If it was so great, they'd just make the whole game 3 on 3 or at least keep the rule for the playoffs.

Why don't they make the entire plane out of the black box?!?!

Dave's a mess wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:44 am

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:27 am

Dave's a mess wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 8:18 am Loser points were fine when 3 on 3 was exciting. I don't think anyone who's watched 3 on 3 over the last few seasons can say it's exciting at all. The loser point was very much created to give the illusion of tighter standings and keep more teams in the playoff race, but the funny thing is it accomplishes the opposite. Sure it artificially inflates point totals, but it also makes it much more difficult to actually make up any ground since good teams will be able to take games to OT and at least get 1 point just as often or more than teams lower than them in the standings. Every game should be worth the same amount of points. I don't care if you go back to ties or if you switch to a 3-2-1-0 system but having certain games award 50% more points than others is a farce.

Also, hot take express here....3 on 3 is just as much skill contest carnival hockey as the shootout. If you play a regular hockey game, you're much more likely to see a penalty shot than you are to see even a second of 3 on 3 hockey. Now kindly get off my lawn.

I agree with this sentiment. I don't think 3 on 3 hockey has grown the game to the casual fan thats sitting around dying for a game to get to OT to witness it. If it was so great, they'd just make the whole game 3 on 3 or at least keep the rule for the playoffs.

Why don't they make the entire plane out of the black box?!?!

What a call back reference, I'm cracking up.

Speaking of...

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 9:44 am Speaking of...

That's actually cool because if the Wild would've been scored on with the empty net, they wouldn't get the loser point.

Dave's a mess wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 12:07 pm

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2024 9:44 am Speaking of...

That's actually cool because if the Wild would've been scored on with the empty net, they wouldn't get the loser point.

I didnt know that. The 3 point system would make teams do this more getting 3 points with a W and losing team would get 0 as like a "they took a risk to get all 3 points and you had a chance to score an ENG to get 3 points"