fanaticV3.0 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Two points for a win and none for a loss. All or nothing and you will see teams going for the win and not playing for the one point.A game can still have ot and shoot out but no point for losing. The very idea that you are rewarding a team for a loss goes against the very concept of sports. Not to mention, as you point out, teams don't try once they reach OT. They know they are getting that point and because hockey is based on points rather than straights Ws and Ls, that's all they care about. But put them in a situation where they get points or they don't and you'll see them make an effort to earn those points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Not to mention, as you point out, teams don't try once they reach OT.Except for the teams which desperately need points, so the difference between 2 points and 1 point may translate to making and NOT making the playoffs for those teams. But that would be more applicable towards the end of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I think you see a lot of teams "playing for the point" at the end of regulation, but there's no benefit to "playing soft" or "not to lose" in the 4-on-4. You've already got the point, the only thing that can happen is earning another point. Most teams IMO play "to win" in 4-on-4, but five minutes is a heartbeat in hockey. That said, I don't like the whole system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanaticV3.0 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Except for the teams which desperately need points, so the difference between 2 points and 1 point may translate to making and NOT making the playoffs for those teams. But that would be more applicable towards the end of the season. Oh yeah, there's definitely times and teams where it's more obvious, but overall I can't say I feel that 4-on-4 is "playing to win" hockey. I mean just listen to the players and coaches after a long road trip or something. They talk about points, not wins. It irks the **** out of me. The whole points system in general does. I wish it just operated like other sports, but that's never going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 what about going the ball hockey "tournament" route? One point for each period you outscore the opposition (1/2 for a tie) and two points for the win. You could potentially end up with 410 points at the end of the season. Oooh and have lasers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Go playoff style all season long. Just play 5 vs 5 till someone wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Go playoff style all season long. Just play 5 vs 5 till someone wins. that's simply not a credible option. For one thing, TV will never support it and without TV there really isn't the sport as we have come to know it. Secondly, the increased risk of injury. Also, too, one of the most powerful owners in the game is also the one with the national sports network launching with NHL as it's premiere product. FWIW, I don't have a problem with the concept itself, I just don't see it as a workable solution to this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 @radoran But think of the beer one could drink if they just kept playing (and they kept the beer sales open)! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 @radoran But think of the beer one could drink if they just kept playing (and they kept the beer sales open)! That's another problem - they close most of the concessions before end of 3rd period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStraw Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 TV will never support it Do you really think so? Does Fox sports or CSN or the NBC sports channel really have programming that they would hate to pre-empt because a game went long? Baseball does it. I'm not really claiming TV would support it, but I don't know that it's a slam dunk "NO WAY". On the other hand, I don't think the players would support it for one second. Way too much wear and tear on the players. You could also run into a problem if you have a Flyers day game and a Sixers night game at the WFC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Do you really think so? Does Fox sports or CSN or the NBC sports channel really have programming that they would hate to pre-empt because a game went long? Baseball does it. I'm not really claiming TV would support it, but I don't know that it's a slam dunk "NO WAY". On the other hand, I don't think the players would support it for one second. Way too much wear and tear on the players. You could also run into a problem if you have a Flyers day game and a Sixers night game at the WFC. NBC itself likely does. They've gone away from playoff games and shifted the OT to what was then Versus or whatever they called it. CSN/TCN? Yeah, I think they would look at the potential for a game being twice as long as it is scheduled for as a problem (even longer than one period plus intermission and you're looking at the better part of an hour of programming). If only because in some cases they've already sold the time to a third party. Baseball is much different. There aren't a lot of "national" style broadcasts barring the postseason. It's much more of a local-broadcast sport. Your point about the teams that share space (not just with basketball, but also concerts, etc.) is also well-taken. There's a reason there were ties, and these are just some of the reasons. As B21 has pointed out, the frequency with which there are OT games (I think he had it around 20% of games) is much higher than in baseball or football or golf or tennis... http://groundballwitheyes.blogspot.com/2013/06/mlb-on-record-pace-for-extra-inning.htmlAs of this morning (Friday, June 14), there have been 110 extra-inning games around baseball so far this season, out of 983 total games played (out of 2,430 scheduled to be played over the entire season). That means MLB is on pace for 272 extra-inning games. That's 11.1% of total games - and is a record-setting outlier for the league. The previous record (220 games of 2,430) was just 9%.\ And they didn't stay on that pacehttp://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/09/25/2013-featured-more-extra-inning-games-than-any-other-season-in-history/When the Blue Jays and Orioles went into the 10th inning Tuesday night, a new record for most extra-inning games in a single season was established. It was the 238th extra-inning game of 2013, besting the mark set in 2011 … Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.