I read the article on Philly.com and while from the title of the piece it sounds like a guarantee, I'm not sure Giroux meant it that way. What he said was:
"we never thought about not making the playoffs. We've got to go game by game and we will make the playoffs."
To me that means he's saying that if they do A, they will accomplish B. I don't take that as any kind of guarantee.
At one point this season, the Devils with ZERO wins were ahead of the Flyers (1 win) in the standings. I hate the shootout and the 3 point game. Why should a Nashville like team lose a shootout because their forwards aren't Crosby and Malkin tier? If the two teams pushed that far against each other fair and square, they should either tie or continue OT. Boiling down to an individual contest isn't fair at all. It's bullshit, just like the loser point.
It's not fair to teams who handle business in regulation. All games should have the same value, be it two or three. There are drawbacks to most options, but I'd prefer fairness myself.
If they keep the shootout crap, at least award regulation wins 3 points, an OT/Shootout win 2 and an OL/Shootout loss 1.
Personally, I'd love to devalue the shootout such that each team only gets one point, but let the shootout winner tiebreaker matter for playoffs.
Agreed. I was never a supporter of the shootout. I understand it in international play because of time constraints and the need for a clear winner when it comes to seeding and medals.
But we have 82 games to let things shake out. No need for a shootout to break every single "tie". Take away the shootout, extend the 4 on 4 OT to 10 minutes, and if there's still no winner, so be it. They each walk away with 1 point.