The NHL's Regular Season is BROKEN.

[WordsOfWisdom]

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 the #1 draft pick.  Teams that lose in round 1 play for the #1 pick in another tournament that will run alongside the playoffs. Teams that lose in round 2 will play for the #2 pick, and so on. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by WordsOfWisdom

[Math]

The regular season is interesting and entertaining on many aspects.

 

For instance, I was ecstatic on the terrific distance-competition the Habs had with the Stars about who would get the most OT losses at the end.

[lynxrattle]

Interesting ideas. Now there's like two champions, the ones who won when the rulebook used was a regular season rulebook, and the ones who won with the playoffs rulebook used. The way WOW imagines it, there would be a real winner, and lots of minor winners. There's only one glitch. The series would have to be whistled with a regular season rulebook. Otherwise there would be too many injuries.

[radoran]

The 82 game season provides the TV contract and related ancillary revenue.

 

A compressed playoff format does not.

 

You are laboring under the idea that this is first and foremost a "sporting" endeavor.

 

It is not. It is an advertising medium.

 

The system isn't "broken" it's working exactly as intended.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Nothing wrong with the regular season........other than Covid sticking its ugly nose into the business this year, causing the league to do makeshift divisions with limited schedules and "bubble" competition where, unfortunately, some divisions was loaded up with teams under normal circumstances, may not have made the playoffs, or at best, maybe one or two get in as an underdog seed.

 

If the thinking here is because the top Northern Division seeds Toronto and Edmonton were shown the door, while an under .500 team in Montreal continues on, that the regular season is "broken", well, that would exactly the type of knee jerk reaction that, if acted upon, would further ruin any semblance of consistency from the league (yea, yea, I know..."consistency" and the league usually don't go well together).

I mean, when you have a division like the North, where teams are all over the place  with regards to their competitive scale, yet ALL have major flaws on their rosters that likely get exploited throughout the season had they been in their normal divisions, seeing a team like Montreal, who IS built big, tough, defensive minded (you know, like playoff teams are usually built), plow on through in this wacky playoff format should surprise no one.

I realize the media had built up this big hype over the Leafs....it was "their year" and all that. 
In truth, the Leafs ARE a good team and CAN get better....but a Cup contender, THIS year, they are not. Never were.

They may have run roughshod throughout the season due to the way the divisions and schedules were set up, but don't think for one minute they do the same thing, in their normal Atlantic division going up regularly against the Lightning, Panthers, Bruins, mixed in with the same Habs who ousted them.
Heck, even Detroit, bad as they are, gave several good accountings of themselves to other teams and were no auto wins for anyone.

Regular season is fine but I just hope they go back to normal divisions and 82-game schedules again.
Not only was this year's format (though I understand it was necessary) very limiting, and difficult to gauge everyone's true strengths and weaknesses, but it got pretty boring down the stretch.
You can only see the same matchups, against the same seven teams for only so long.

[WordsOfWisdom]

12 hours ago, lynxrattle said:

Interesting ideas. Now there's like two champions, the ones who won when the rulebook used was a regular season rulebook, and the ones who won with the playoffs rulebook used. The way WOW imagines it, there would be a real winner, and lots of minor winners. There's only one glitch. The series would have to be whistled with a regular season rulebook. Otherwise there would be too many injuries.

 

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.

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

8 hours ago, radoran said:

The system isn't "broken" it's working exactly as intended.

 

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 picks, so there's always something for all 32 teams to play for...... unlike the current system where the top 10/32 teams have nothing to play for in the final two months because they've already clinched a playoff spot or are about to, the bottom 10/32 teams have nothing to play for because they're eliminated or about to be, and the middle 12/32 is where all the intrigue is.

 

The NHL's regular season boils down to what's happening in the MIDDLE of the standings, with no regard to the top or bottom. Plus, there's no benefit to finishing at the top. There is however, a tangible benefit to finishing at the bottom: the draft lottery. So basically, why try?

 

(I'm still trying to wrap my head around Montreal's W-L record. They had 1 more win than Vancouver.) 

[WordsOfWisdom]

3 hours ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

If the thinking here is because the top Northern Division seeds Toronto and Edmonton were shown the door, while an under .500 team in Montreal continues on, that the regular season is "broken", well, that would exactly the type of knee jerk reaction that, if acted upon, would further ruin any semblance of consistency from the league (yea, yea, I know..."consistency" and the league usually don't go well together).

 

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 team to get in. A losing team could never get in.

 

Now, if you want more teams in there, you could have more divisions. A 32-team league could have 8 divisions of 4 teams each. Same rules apply: Only the #1 team in each division would make the playoffs. There has to be some real reward for finishing 1st and home ice advantage is not it. It needs to be playoffs or no playoffs. 

 

 

 

[ruxpin]

82 game preseason. Followed by the most grueling tournament in sports.

 

MLB is approaching the NHL in making the regular season a completely irrelevant waste of time.  (Nevermind that MLB is as boring as life could possibly get. I'm just talking season vs playoff structure)

 

Several things have made the regular season entirely irrelevant (in no particular order):

 

82 games.  There is simply no reason for it other than money.  Yeah, I know.  But competitively, there is no reason for more than 50. Less games would help a game in October become remotely relevant..

 

3-point games.  You win, you get something. You don't, you get nothing and you either figure it out or shut up and go home with nothing, loser.  Seriously. The 3-point game weighs some games more than others.  You don't see that in the playoffs. Winning 4 games is all that matters.

 

Shootout.  Stupid at its conception, inception, and utilization. You reduce too many games to a skills competition and a gimmick.  A team sport is NOT about skill. It NEVER was and never should be.  It's about winning.  You boil it down to a skills competition, you have removed strategy--which is what makes it intriguing (see baseball and the murder of strategy).  I'm sorry, but people who don't see this are, in my opinion, not actually sports fans.  They're beauty pageant fans.

 

Parity.  This word means "variations of mediocrity."  Stop placating stupid people with the attention span of a gnat and intelligence and loyalty of bread mold.  They are not actually fans and never will be.   Clearly this is about money and not sport. When you've reached the point where this isn't just abundantly clear but abusively in everyone's face...

 

Expansion.  Chains that end up on every single corner eventually blow themselves out.  It's not much different than a poorly built fire that burns really quickly and really hot but, because it is not constructed or fueled probably, burns itself out. We don't need a McNHL in every damn city. And stop with the expansion talk to Canadian cities with about 20 people in them.   All of this feeds almost all of the previously-mentioned issues.

 

Gary Bettman.  Really just an extension of the owners. But that's the face of the problem.

 

That being said. @WordsOfWisdom, you and I are arguably the worst ambassadors for this message.  We are both fans of teams that are horribly constructed to compete when the sport really matters.  Yours did better in the swimsuit competition than mine,  but neither team remotely understand strategy or how to actually compete when it's boiled down to sport.  So any complaint about structure sounds like spoiled grapes.

[WordsOfWisdom]

On 6/8/2021 at 7:23 AM, ruxpin said:

Several things have made the regular season entirely irrelevant (in no particular order):

 

82 games.  There is simply no reason for it other than money.  Yeah, I know.  But competitively, there is no reason for more than 50. Less games would help a game in October become remotely relevant..

 

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).

 

On 6/8/2021 at 7:23 AM, ruxpin said:

3-point games.  You win, you get something. You don't, you get nothing and you either figure it out or shut up and go home with nothing, loser.  Seriously. The 3-point game weighs some games more than others.  You don't see that in the playoffs. Winning 4 games is all that matters.

 

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 mutually exclusive. All the league would have to do is place a limit on the number of shooters, say "3 shooters per side" and if no result occurs after that, it's a tie. Plus we could get rid of the silly 3-on-3 or 4-on-4 OT and just play a normal 5-on-5 OT because the shootout won't ultimately settle many of those games if done with a cap on the number of shooters. 

 

On 6/8/2021 at 7:23 AM, ruxpin said:

Shootout.  Stupid at its conception, inception, and utilization. You reduce too many games to a skills competition and a gimmick.  A team sport is NOT about skill. It NEVER was and never should be.  It's about winning.  You boil it down to a skills competition, you have removed strategy--which is what makes it intriguing (see baseball and the murder of strategy).  I'm sorry, but people who don't see this are, in my opinion, not actually sports fans.  They're beauty pageant fans.

 

(See above.)

 

On 6/8/2021 at 7:23 AM, ruxpin said:

Parity.  This word means "variations of mediocrity."  Stop placating stupid people with the attention span of a gnat and intelligence and loyalty of bread mold.  They are not actually fans and never will be.   Clearly this is about money and not sport. When you've reached the point where this isn't just abundantly clear but abusively in everyone's face...

 

This is a problem that can only go away through the elimination of the salary cap.  As a Toronto fan, we obviously support the elimination of the cap. It hurts us more than any other franchise in the league because we have the most money to spend and can't spend it. Putting a cap on the Leafs is like putting a cap on the Yankees. 

 

On 6/8/2021 at 7:23 AM, ruxpin said:

Expansion.  Chains that end up on every single corner eventually blow themselves out.  It's not much different than a poorly built fire that burns really quickly and really hot but, because it is not constructed or fueled probably, burns itself out. We don't need a McNHL in every damn city. And stop with the expansion talk to Canadian cities with about 20 people in them.   All of this feeds almost all of the previously-mentioned issues.

 

I agree. Too many teams. 

 

On 6/8/2021 at 7:23 AM, ruxpin said:

Gary Bettman.  Really just an extension of the owners. But that's the face of the problem.

 

A businessman who sees only the US market and takes for granted that Canada will always support the NHL unconditionally. (It won't.)  That is perhaps Bettman's biggest mistake. Canada's demographics are changing rapidly and two key sports are poised to lose out big time: Baseball and hockey. 

 

MLB hasn't done much to put down roots in Canada. There have been countless opportunities to return to Montreal and expand into Vancouver. The league has been satisfied to have just Toronto. That will cost MLB dearly as baseball is erased from Canada and replaced by soccer, cricket, and other sports. 

 

The NHL is mostly tapped out in Canada, but the lack of a second team in Toronto and a return to Quebec City has cost the league BILLIONS of dollars in revenue so far (and counting).  The NHL is voluntarily staying in 4th place among the NA leagues by willingly operating at 75% of its full potential. 

 

 

 

Making the regular season count:

 

Fewer playoff spots makes each game count more (for the teams we care about).

 

Having a series of cuts (like a golf tournament) would make the games count HUGE. This is perhaps the most innovative, unexplored idea ever. Make the first cut at the end of January. The bottom 8 teams are eliminated. Gone. Season over. Those teams play a tournament to decide the #1 draft pick. Everyone else moves on with the season. The second (and final cut) happens end of March. This cut could eliminate up to 16 teams. Now you've got your playoff teams (the remaining 8). For the eliminated teams, they're just done. Everyone else plays on with the playoffs.  By splitting the regular season into segments with cuts, it matters all the way through. It's like the difficulty gradually ramps up as you go along.   

 

Note: Teams that survive the 1st cut only play each other from January onward. So it's the best of who's left vs the best of who's left. Very entertaining. The playoffs are then the best of the best from that group. 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by WordsOfWisdom

[ruxpin]

23 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

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 mutually exclusive. All the league would have to do is place a limit on the number of shooters, say "3 shooters per side" and if no result occurs after that, it's a tie. Plus we could get rid of the silly 3-on-3 or 4-on-4 OT and just play a normal 5-on-5 OT because the shootout won't ultimately settle many of those games if done with a cap on the number of shooters. 

 

They are or at least should be or you're making the shootout even more pathetic than it already is.    I think you've probably noticed already, but I viscerally hate everything about the shootout.   If we're doing the shootout and it can still end in a tie, there is absolutely no point to it.

 

I have zero problem with ties as a concept.  I agree with the "unfinished business" thing and also understand the argument that during the regular season you just simply cannot have games go on in perpetuity as it does create safety issues (among other logistical problems).   I know most Canadiens seem inexplicably adverse to this suggestion, but KILL THE POINTS ALTOGETHER and go with winning percentage.   It's stunning to me that Canadiens and Europeans have otherwise intelligent and sensible measuring systems while us stupid Americans have cups and ounces and feet and yards and "yay long" but the former can't get on board with a sensible mathematical way of tracking standings.

 

Oilers, 5-4-1 would be a .550 winning percentage.

Leafs, 6-4-0 = .600

Senators 6-4-1 =  .591

 

In this hypothetical, in this moment, the Senators would appear to be up in the standings due to 13 points vs. 12 points. But they don't actually have a better record.   We sit there and say stupid crap like "game in hand."    yeah,  game in hand, empty head.

 

With winning percentage, teams don't get an artificial point for not winning.    And the standings reflect -- at all times -- who actually has the best record at any given time.

 

Yes, ties amount to 0.5 in the math calculation, but the team that ties is effectively sharing half the point rather than suddenly a full point appearing out of nowhere.

 

I know. Tradition.  There are a lot of traditions we no longer do anymore.    Scooping up crap behind the horse and buggy.   Not being able to know what time it is because "dark vs. sundial."   Sacrificing virgins  (not because it's morally wrong, but we as Americans have a problem killing 6 year olds by sacrifice.  Shooting the crap out of them at school is apparently a more civilized/efficient process).

 

I haven't finished reading the rest of your post yet, so probably more to follow.

On your 82 games, I get your point.   But other leagues don't play all the teams every single year.   I kind of like the opportunity to see McDavid or Mackinnon or whomever each year against my team, but if we don't, we don't.   It still a gate-driven league, so cutting down the number of games is not happening any time soon, if ever.   So your "do it more effectively" will have to do.

 

 

[ruxpin]

40 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

 

This is a problem that can only go away through the elimination of the salary cap.  As a Toronto fan, we obviously support the elimination of the cap. It hurts us more than any other franchise in the league because we have the most money to spend and can't spend it. Putting a cap on the Leafs is like putting a cap on the Yankees.

 

I'm not sure the cap prevented the Leafs from 1967 to 2005.

Just saying because I can't help myself.

But overall I agree about the cap.    It's hurt teams like the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers and some others (in combination with horrible mismanagement and lack of vision by all three-mentioned franchises).   None of them ever adjusted to a new world.    And it's helped teams/cities that probably don't deserve to exist.  [/elitist rant]

[ruxpin]

45 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

Making the regular season count:

 

Fewer playoff spots makes each game count more (for the teams we care about).

 

Having a series of cuts (like a golf tournament) would make the games count HUGE. This is perhaps the most innovative, unexplored idea ever. Make the first cut at the end of January. The bottom 8 teams are eliminated. Gone. Season over. Those teams play a tournament to decide the #1 draft pick. Everyone else moves on with the season. The second (and final cut) happens end of March. This cut could eliminate up to 16 teams. Now you've got your playoff teams (the remaining 8). For the eliminated teams, they're just done. Everyone else plays on with the playoffs.  By splitting the regular season into segments with cuts, it matters all the way through. It's like the difficulty gradually ramps up as you go along.   

 

Note: Teams that survive the 1st cut only play each other from January onward. So it's the best of who's left vs the best of who's left. Very entertaining. The playoffs are then the best of the best from that group. 

 

In theory, interesting.    The economics of it are prohibitive.

 

Again, at root, gate is the revenue-driver.

I realize this is myopic because the idea here is to create growth in fanbase and, therefore, television revenue.   That and merchandise sales, etc., is how you ultimately go from "oh, and I guess hockey" to being alongside football and basketball.

But in the near term, too many teams are dependent upon the possibility of playoff revenue.   So, I'm completely onboard with less playoff teams.   And I like the idea in theory because ultimately some teams would fold -- less teams; yay!    I don't think it's plausible.

 

The cuts are an interesting concept.   But unlike golf, there are season ticket plans, etc., to consider.  And television contracts.   Arena scheduling.   The teams that own their arena are one thing and bad enough, but those that don't would quickly need to find a new home or fold.  The cuts in golf don't change whether there will be a Masters or whatever Open.  They just determine whose in it.     If a team doesn't make the cut, not only do they lose out the gate revenue, they lose advertisers, TV contracts, etc.   Would players be paid the same?  How does that contract work?

 

I think in theory it's interesting, but there's no way economically and logistically to make that a reality.     Interesting thoughts, though.

[WordsOfWisdom]

6 hours ago, ruxpin said:

 

I'm not sure the cap prevented the Leafs from 1967 to 2005.

Just saying because I can't help myself.

But overall I agree about the cap.    It's hurt teams like the Leafs, Rangers, Flyers and some others (in combination with horrible mismanagement and lack of vision by all three-mentioned franchises).   None of them ever adjusted to a new world.    And it's helped teams/cities that probably don't deserve to exist.  [/elitist rant]

 

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.

 

[Puck_Pun]

I've said before that the format this year was got garbage and I stand by it. Just as in the 'are you cheering for the leafs' thread I said that the leafs doing well in the regular season means little when it comes to playing in what is an on the whole weak division. 

 

That said... man, the Canadiens doing well should *still* be considered one of those weird things that happen in the play-offs. Favourites to win the cup sometimes end up getting swept in round one, and dark horses sometimes surprise people. 

 

I don't see them getting past round three... however I thought the same about their chances against the jets.

[WordsOfWisdom]

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

The cuts are an interesting concept.   But unlike golf, there are season ticket plans, etc., to consider.  And television contracts.   Arena scheduling.   The teams that own their arena are one thing and bad enough, but those that don't would quickly need to find a new home or fold.  The cuts in golf don't change whether there will be a Masters or whatever Open.  They just determine whose in it.     If a team doesn't make the cut, not only do they lose out the gate revenue, they lose advertisers, TV contracts, etc.   Would players be paid the same?  How does that contract work?

 

I think in theory it's interesting, but there's no way economically and logistically to make that a reality.     Interesting thoughts, though.

 

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.   

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

They are or at least should be or you're making the shootout even more pathetic than it already is.    I think you've probably noticed already, but I viscerally hate everything about the shootout.   If we're doing the shootout and it can still end in a tie, there is absolutely no point to it.

 

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 points. You win the shootout, you get 2 points. If neither side scores after 3 shooters each, it's a tie and we all go home. If teams don't like the idea of losing in a skill competition, then win in regulation or OT. Don't let it get there. Either way, the fans got to see their shootout. Maybe they would like ties as long as they can watch breakaways? I don't know. 

 

I look at the shootout as one more attempt to break a tie. It doesn't have to break the tie, but that's where I sit alone in my view of the shootout. Nobody else in the hockey world has ever considered that a shootout could have a limit. It doesn't compute. People accept the fact that overtime can have a defined time limit OR it can go on forever until someone wins. Nobody has ever applied that same logic to the shootout until I brought it forward (now over 10 years ago actually and it made sports talk radio because I sent it in to the host as a suggestion).  I wonder if I can upload that clip here.   

 

 

[WordsOfWisdom]

10 hours ago, ruxpin said:

 I know most Canadiens seem inexplicably adverse to this suggestion, but KILL THE POINTS ALTOGETHER and go with winning percentage.   It's stunning to me that Canadiens and Europeans have otherwise intelligent and sensible measuring systems while us stupid Americans have cups and ounces and feet and yards and "yay long" but the former can't get on board with a sensible mathematical way of tracking standings.

 

Oilers, 5-4-1 would be a .550 winning percentage.

Leafs, 6-4-0 = .600

Senators 6-4-1 =  .591

 

In this hypothetical, in this moment, the Senators would appear to be up in the standings due to 13 points vs. 12 points. But they don't actually have a better record.   We sit there and say stupid crap like "game in hand."    yeah,  game in hand, empty head.

 

With winning percentage, teams don't get an artificial point for not winning.    And the standings reflect -- at all times -- who actually has the best record at any given time.

 

Yes, ties amount to 0.5 in the math calculation, but the team that ties is effectively sharing half the point rather than suddenly a full point appearing out of nowhere.

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

[ruxpin]

16 minutes ago, WordsOfWisdom said:

• 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

This. Every word this.

 

If there's any chance of ending a shootout with a tie, then I want no part of it. Just end it in a tie after the 5 minute overtime (or go completely old school and end with a tie at the end of 60 minutes of regulation).

 

But get rid of the points and go to percentage so teams aren't encouraged to do NOTHING so they don't lose their garbage point.

 

I've been to boring ties and very exciting ties.  A 7-1 game can actually be more boring than a 2-2 tie.  Doesn't have to be, of course, but it can be 

 

IF they're keeping points and they're keeping the shootout, I get your point about limiting the number and it's a tie if no one has won.     8, 9, 10 rounds becomes boring, so limit it.  As a humanitarian gesture, I kind of get it.   To me, it's removing the only reason for an entirely unnecessary exercise.   But at least it would put a limit to the pain 

[SaucyJack]

I think it was 2010, the 3rd year that the Ovenchicken Caps choked at playoff time, that I utterly broke down.  Three decades of countless playoff chokes had evolved me to watching less regular season every season,but dutifully viewing their annual spring meltdown.  After 2010 it was barely watch regular season, just read the WaPo articles now and then and maybe an occasional game highlight.  Playoff watching remained a mandatory viewing assignment, less a joy than a solemn duty.

 

Then the unimaginable 2018 run of luck and skill to a Cup, probably the only one they’ll win in a century of toil.  After that I watched a bit more regular season, able to enjoy it knowing that no matter what, the lads didn’t go 0 for 100.  The mostly meaningless fluff was at least fun and no longer an utter waste of hope.

 

Yes if you want sport in a true sense then watch playoffs only.  NHL, NBA, MLB, College Hoops being the main ones in that category.

[lynxrattle]

Bring back the tie.

[WordsOfWisdom]

@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

[WordsOfWisdom]

Part 2:

 

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

[SaucyJack]

Simpler than what was described in the first clip (4 win, 3 OT win, 2 shootout win, 1 for OT/shootout loss)...

 

...would be 3 win, 2 OT/SO win, 1 OT/SO loss.  Then it’s a zero-sum game, all contests equal divvying out 3 points total.

 

The league also has to cater to more casual customers who will attend a game in winter because, well, it is winter and it’s not MLB or NFL season.  And those folks don’t find ties palatable.  If every fan was “serious” about the league, and followed the regular season horse race with interest, ties would be A-OK.

 

I remember the pre-2004-strike days, looking at the fine print scores in the newspaper, and seeing what the IHL did...extra point to an OT winner making some games 3 points, others 2.  My immediate thought:  BUSH LEAGUE!  Nobody gives a doocr@p about the league’s horse race.  When it was announced post-strike that the NHL would adopt the same, I groaned.

[radoran]

On 6/9/2021 at 10:54 AM, ruxpin said:

None of them ever adjusted to a new world.

 

Forget the cap, the Leafs have never adjusted to a league with more than six teams...