Since NHL has been brought up, which is based on a points system not a win/loss system. I think one thing that seperates the NHL in 'fairness' is that when a game goes to overtime, both teams are instantly guaranteed at least one point. So basically both teams are considered partial winners as soon as the game ends in a tie. The winner of overtime receives the other point. Just making it to overtime can have huge effects on the standings especially late in the season. A team that loses in regular gameplay gets zero points and a team thats loses in OT gets one point.
I go back and forth on the NHL overtime rules... I like watching shootouts, but hate that a winner of a team game is decided by a breakaway drill. I don't like the idea of a losing team getting a point in a game, but I understand them trying to rid of ties. Ties in general didn't bother me, but there is something unfulfilling about paying plopping down $75 to go to a game and leaving without seeing someone win.
While not perfect, I guess I am ok with the rules. I'd like to see maybe the AHL go to a 3 point system (3 for outright win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss) for a season just to see how things work out. That is a lot of extra points in the standings to be handed out, so I'd like to see what kind of impact it would have on things before implemented in the NHL.
I understand your views. The way I view it is that the regular game and overtime are two different entities. If a game ends in a tie, that's exactly what it is, both teams fought hard for 60 minutes and they came up even...so one point is given to each. Then they play a 5 minute 'mini-game' and possibly a shootout to determine who gets the remaining point that could not be awarded in 60 minutes of play. A tie + a loss = 1 point...A tie + a win = 2 points.
Though exicting, I am not a huge fan of a shootout determining a winner. But like someone mentioned in an earlier post about the NFL, hockey in an extremely tiring and phisically game for which they can't play all night like baseball. This is where the shootout comes into play.
By the way, I do like your idea for the AHL to try a 3 point system for a season. You're right that would be a lot of extra points being tossed around and teams could move up and down the standings much quicker. It would definitely keep things exciting until the end.
basically, if the team that win the coin flip scores a fg, the other team get a chance to match or win with a TD.
IMO, it should be more like the college rule. instead of starting each possesion on the 25 yard line, you line up like normal and kick it away. each team gets a shot at the ball until a winner is decided. or put it at the 35 yard line and have at it.
as written, the new rule is pretty stupid. imo of course
I've quit watching hockey since the new rules. I think they are stupid.
I think they need a version of the college system.
If you win the flip in the NFL, you instantly have a 60% chance of winning. Pretty sad to have a season determined by a coin flip.
The college system is at least fair. Both teams get a shot, have the same opportunity...
If they didn't want to DO the college system, at least give each offense and defense a shot.
Like 81 said, I think if they didn't want to put the ball on the 35, at least give both teams a chance to start from a kickoff.
i love college overtime. i was at the syracuse/v. tech game in '05 that went 3OT's. it was pretty exciting.
I favor the college OT rule. It's very exciting for the fans, but more importantly, it gives the two teams an equal chance.
United Center (Chicago): 8/24/09
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
basically, if the team that win the coin flip scores a fg, the other team get a chance to match or win with a TD.
IMO, it should be more like the college rule. instead of starting each possesion on the 25 yard line, you line up like normal and kick it away. each team gets a shot at the ball until a winner is decided. or put it at the 35 yard line and have at it.
as written, the new rule is pretty stupid. imo of course
I've quit watching hockey since the new rules. I think they are stupid.
You've quit watching hockey because of a shootout that happens like once every 10 games?
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Comments
I understand your views. The way I view it is that the regular game and overtime are two different entities. If a game ends in a tie, that's exactly what it is, both teams fought hard for 60 minutes and they came up even...so one point is given to each. Then they play a 5 minute 'mini-game' and possibly a shootout to determine who gets the remaining point that could not be awarded in 60 minutes of play. A tie + a loss = 1 point...A tie + a win = 2 points.
Though exicting, I am not a huge fan of a shootout determining a winner. But like someone mentioned in an earlier post about the NFL, hockey in an extremely tiring and phisically game for which they can't play all night like baseball. This is where the shootout comes into play.
Games should not be worth more points if they go to OT.
The shootout is garbage. If they had to have it, they should go to a 3 pts for a regulation win system.
Id be fine with ties
As far as the NFL goes, I really like the new rules and I think they are long overdue.
I favor the college OT rule. It's very exciting for the fans, but more importantly, it gives the two teams an equal chance.
Gibson Amphitheatre (Los Angeles): 10/7/09
You've quit watching hockey because of a shootout that happens like once every 10 games?
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln