WordsOfWisdom

Now we'll finally get to see how the North division representative fairs against an opponent outside the division.

I think the point system is one of those things that makes hockey unique. Ties should make a comeback as well. The ties and points system are a nod to the European heritage in the league (Canada --> Britain, etc.) Americans specifically, are accustomed to just wins and losses. I'm hoping the league fixes its points system back to 2-0-1 (W-L-T) like it was before and keeps it indefinitely. No sports league should ever surrender one of its unique attributes to be more like another sports league. Always keep your uniqueness. Baseball opened the game up to interleag

Part 2: Bob McCown - Primetime Sports - Nov 2 2009 - Mentions my proposed NHL PTS system - Part 2.mp3

@ruxpin Here's the audio clip. Part 1: (The original topic of the show was the NHL points system.) Bob McCown - Primetime Sports - Nov 2 2009 - Mentions my proposed NHL PTS system - Part 1.mp3

Had to take a closer look at this. If the teams have the same number of games played, would they ever be ordered differently in the standings by winning percentage than by points? A team at 6-4-1 is 1 point ahead of the 6-4-0 team but we acknowledge that the 6-4-0 team will be ahead IF they win their next game. The points system is just an easier way to express this. If the Leafs win their next game, they're 7-4-0 for 14 points. So that's 14 points to 13 or .636 to .591.

I'm not a fan of the shootout for the following reasons: It waters down (and kills) the most exciting and rarest play in hockey: the 1-on-1 penalty shot (skater vs goalie). The loser still gets a point, so neither side cares who wins the shootout. They keep going with more shooters which gets boring. It's a fake and forced way to end a hockey game. But if the game is going to have some shred of integrity, the league could easily have a 60 minute game, a 5 minute 5-on-5 OT, and then make the shootout a SCARY place for teams to be. You lose the shootout, you get 0 poi

They would go into the tournament to play for the #1 draft pick. A tournament of 8 teams with 3 rounds. Basically you have this: OCT-JAN--------------FEB-MAR---------------APR-MAY Season play---cut-----Season 2 play---cut-----Playoffs ------------------------Draft pick Tournament----------- (Excuse the poor Gantt chart lol.) OCT-JAN = ~60 GP FEB-MAR = ~20 GP Everyone plays from October until April, just like now.

This is perhaps the biggest misconception about the Leafs: Harold Ballard WAS a salary cap. He was the anti-George Steinbrenner. The Leafs didn't ever spend money like a rich team until Ballard DIED. Not surprisingly, that period of time coincided with the Leafs greatest run of modern day success: the four conference final appearances in the 90's and early 2000's. That was the only period of time where the Leafs exercised their financial muscle. After 2005 we had a league imposed cap. Prior to 1990, the Leafs had a Ballard-imposed cap.

I figured I'd get to these individually...... The length of the season does indeed dilute the value of each individual game. However, given the number of teams and the "round robin" like nature of the schedule, I don't see this as the major issue. I think 82 games can work well IF done right (see bottom). I'm in favour of 2-1-0 (W-T-L). I like ties. It leaves unfinished business during the regular season. There's nothing wrong with a tie and as I discussed once ages ago, you can have ties and either keep the shootout or get rid of the shootout. The two aren't

Well it comes down to the basic philosophy that Toronto was the better team over 56 games. Toronto had 77 points. Montreal had only 59 points. That's a much larger sample size than a 7-game series. Montreal managed to squeeze by Toronto over 7 games. Over 56 games, Toronto left Montreal in the dust. In a league where the regular season matters, this matchup never happens. It should be that the #1 team in each division makes the playoffs. The playoffs should be Toronto, Colorado, Pittsburgh, and Carolina. That way it means something to make the playoffs and it means you're a great

I agree. It's exactly as the NHL intended but not how a true sporting event/competition would be intended to work... unfortunately. I've suggested dozens of ways to fix the broken regular season that currently exists. This idea (in this thread) is more of a joke than anything, but even as dumb as it is, it's better than the status quo, at least as far as integrity, competition, and sport is concerned. If the whole "season" was just one big tournament to build up to a champion, everyone has their chance to win and win now. The eliminated teams begin playing for draft

My theory is, since the regular season (in the NHL) means nothing, then why not just let all the teams in? If the Montreal Canadiens with their 24-32 record (the worst in NHL history for any playoff team I'm sure) can make the playoffs, then why shouldn't the Vancouver Canucks be in the playoffs? They deserve to be there just as much as Montreal does. 50 points is 9 less than Montreal but only 1 less win.

Why bother? Why does the NHL have a regular season? It's 100% meaningless. 56 (normally 82) exhibition games of nothing so that -9 teams with 24-32 records can make the playoffs. Maybe the NHL should stop pretending to care about the standings and just have the 32-team, 5-round playoffs that we all know they want. Start the playoffs in October. Make every series a best-of-21. Five rounds @ 21 games each = 105 games. Charge full playoff revenue for every game. Then have the losing teams enter a relegation round where they play for th

Is there such a thing as a Leafs fan that isn't disgruntled?

Well worth a view: A complete history of the Leafs stingy ownership under Ballard, and all the terrible trades this franchise has made over the decades. When you add it all up, it's truly amazing the Leafs are hockey's richest franchise. Given that the salary cap came in starting in 2005 and Harold Ballard ran the team up until about 1990, the Leafs got to enjoy a period of about ~15 years where they actually used their tremendous wealth to buy star players. Overall however, that simply isn't the case. Under Ballard, the Leafs acted like an impoverished