Buffalo Rick Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 I believe that the biggest issue on the table is whether or not to go to the 3 point regulation win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hf101 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 On 3/7/2017 at 7:12 PM, Hockey Junkie said: I believe that the biggest issue on the table is whether or not to go to the 3 point regulation win? There has been some discussion also with offsides as the rule will probably change to the the plane of the blue line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 On 3/7/2017 at 8:12 PM, Hockey Junkie said: I believe that the biggest issue on the table is whether or not to go to the 3 point regulation win? Why do they have to make things so convoluted? It might be easier to give 2 points for regulation win, 1 point for OT/SO win, and 0 points for losing in ANY SCENARIO. I mean, I still don't get why you get a point for forcing an extra 5 minutes of hockey even if you lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 31 minutes ago, brelic said: Why do they have to make things so convoluted? It might be easier to give 2 points for regulation win, 1 point for OT/SO win, and 0 points for losing in ANY SCENARIO. I mean, I still don't get why you get a point for forcing an extra 5 minutes of hockey even if you lose. I'll take it one step further...a win is a win no matter in regulation / OT/ or SO.... just award a single point for the win ..period. Football / Basketball / or Baseball do not give an extra point for simply going into OT or extra innings. So why must hockey? I get it years ago when there still were ties in the league...but since the introduction of the SO, ties no longer exist in hockey. (EDIT: At the NHL level that is...not talking about other leagues.) There is now a clear winner and a clear loser. Award a single point for the win and zero points for the loss. Period end of story.... Why does the league insist on making this so damn complicated ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 1 minute ago, pilldoc said: I'll take it one step further...a win is a win no matter in regulation / OT/ or SO.... just award a single point for the win ..period. Football / Basketball / or Baseball do not give an extra point for simply going into OT or extra innings. So why must hockey? I get it years ago when there still were ties in the league...but since the introduction of the SO, ties no longer exist in hockey. There is now a clear winner and a clear loser. Award a single point for the win and zero points for the loss. Period end of story.... Why does the league insist on making this so damn complicated ....... Yes, I agree! I didn't propose anything simple because it seems the league is intent on creating parity any way it can, which includes revenue sharing, contract limits in length and dollars, cap floor/ceiling, and a convoluted points system that includes getting a trophy for showing up. Here are a few suggestions for them, because, you know, they definitely listen to the fans! 1. 1st, 2nd and 3rd overall draft picks go to the three best teams that don't make the playoffs. From the 4th pick on, go to the bottom of the standings like now. There's something dishonorable about the Penguins and Maple Leafs mode of team building. 2. Kill the shootout. Extend the 3 on 3 to 10 minutes or even until someone wins. How long would it ever realistically take??? 3. 2 points for winning. 0 points for losing. Every scenario would use this. I would keep the 2 points for a win simply for historical puposes - comparison becomes complicated otherwise. Then again, it's complicated now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 28 minutes ago, brelic said: 1st, 2nd and 3rd overall draft picks go to the three best teams that don't make the playoffs. From the 4th pick on, go to the bottom of the standings like now That is a very interesting proposal. A system that would actually promote a trying to win now situation. Those teams that are just then wee bit close but need an extra push. It certainly would not reward the teams that are constantly on the bottom. I'm sure there are some on here that could come up with a list of pros and cons for this idea. I admit, it is a novel approach. Just for giggles here are the top 3 teams not to make playoffs for the last 3 seasons: 2015-16: Boston / Carolinia / Ottawa (Can you imagine Matthew / Laine / Dubuis going to these teams) 2014-15: Boston / LA / Dallas (Can you imagine McDavid / Eichel / Strome going to these teams) 2013-14: Washington / Arizona / 3 way tie NSH / NJ / Ottawa (Can you imagine Ekblad /Reinhart / Draisaitl on these teams) Of course you cannot assume Boston would be there twice as the best team not to make playoffs, but they would be the clear winner by obtaining BOTH McDavid AND Matthews. And in case you would be wondering...if the season ended today the top 3 teams NOT to make playoffs would be: (Toronto / Flyers / LA). The Flyers would be picking 2nd overall. A very interesting proposition indeed........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 38 minutes ago, pilldoc said: That is a very interesting proposal. A system that would actually promote a trying to win now situation. Those teams that are just then wee bit close but need an extra push. It certainly would not reward the teams that are constantly on the bottom. I'm sure there are some on here that could come up with a list of pros and cons for this idea. I admit, it is a novel approach. Just for giggles here are the top 3 teams not to make playoffs for the last 3 seasons: 2015-16: Boston / Carolinia / Ottawa (Can you imagine Matthew / Laine / Dubuis going to these teams) 2014-15: Boston / LA / Dallas (Can you imagine McDavid / Eichel / Strome going to these teams) 2013-14: Washington / Arizona / 3 way tie NSH / NJ / Ottawa (Can you imagine Ekblad /Reinhart / Draisaitl on these teams) Of course you cannot assume Boston would be there twice as the best team not to make playoffs, but they would be the clear winner by obtaining BOTH McDavid AND Matthews. And in case you would be wondering...if the season ended today the top 3 teams NOT to make playoffs would be: (Toronto / Flyers / LA). The Flyers would be picking 2nd overall. A very interesting proposition indeed........ Yes I like the approach of rewarding winning... not losing. I understand the cons would be that bottom feeders can never get out if they can't draft solid players. Well, then how do most teams in the NHL remain competitive without picking in the top 3? It took Edmonton NINE years of being rotten and getting top pick after top pick to finally look like a decent team. Then again, I think there are too many teams in the NHL, and would chop out about 4-6 teams.... something that is a non-starter for the NHL. In fact, they're looking to dilute the talent pool even further with expansion. So... In your examples above, I would say that's all good because those teams try and ice a competitive team (minus Arizona, I guess haha). So why not reward them for trying hard to maximize their assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share Posted March 13, 2017 On 3/9/2017 at 8:10 AM, pilldoc said: I'll take it one step further...a win is a win no matter in regulation / OT/ or SO.... just award a single point for the win ..period. Football / Basketball / or Baseball do not give an extra point for simply going into OT or extra innings. So why must hockey? I get it years ago when there still were ties in the league...but since the introduction of the SO, ties no longer exist in hockey. (EDIT: At the NHL level that is...not talking about other leagues.) There is now a clear winner and a clear loser. Award a single point for the win and zero points for the loss. Period end of story.... Why does the league insist on making this so damn complicated ....... I STRONGLY disagree with you. I am for the old system where a tie is a tie. So if you now have Shootouts for entertainment sake, fine. But you cannot take that one point away from a team that played a team dead even for 60 minutes. No way. I am more for the 3 point regulation win. IN soccer they use the 3 point win I believe and with success. Many of their games still go to OT. I know its the nature of soccer but hockey is not that far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Rick Posted March 13, 2017 Author Share Posted March 13, 2017 On 3/9/2017 at 7:27 AM, hf101 said: There has been some discussion also with offsides as the rule will probably change to the the plane of the blue line. And I agree with this. I cant stand to see a goal reversed five minutes later. Its BS. Yes we lost two games at the hand of our ex coach Lindy Ruff. But we won one also due to this God forsaken crap of a rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.