Comments on: Jarome Iginla wants to see the NHL’s ‘loser point’ go away

By: rainyday56

rainyday56 — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 20:04:48 +0000

League should get in line with the other majors and post winning percentages instead of points. 1.000 percentage point for a win, .667 for OT win and .333 for an OT loss. Could you imagine hockey bloggers getting brain cramps trying to figure the implications of future results based on this type of scoring?

Of course this would require another bean counter at NHLHO with a ipad to calculate. I’m surprised CEO and chief bean counter Bettman hasn’t thought of it sooner.

By: trbowman

trbowman — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:31:18 +0000

The current set-up is perfect.

By: pastabelly

pastabelly — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:02:51 +0000

I would rather they give 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win, and 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss. Nothing won in overtime or shootouts should be worth as much as winning a game in 60 minutes and this whole business about playing for ties and getting conservative the last couple of minutes of a game is stupid.

By: umrguy42

umrguy42 — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:11:38 +0000

I thought it was (back say in the early to mid 90s or so), 2 points for a win in regulation or OT, and if there’s a tie AFTER OT, both teams get 1 point each. Then they decided to ‘spice’ it up by saying a loss in OT also got your team a point, which led to too many teams playing to maintain the tie, so then they said “no more ties after OT, we go to the shootout”.

Seems to me, if you keep the shootout so that there are no more ties, and ditch the “loser point” (nice name), you don’t need “points” at all – you can go on record alone.

By: comeonnowguys

comeonnowguys — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:00:13 +0000

I’d rather go back to ties than have a shootout determine a 2-point standing swing.

By: dasboat

dasboat — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:04:00 +0000

As I recall, there was lot of opposition to the idea of the 5-minute overtime when that issue was first on the table. Teams said “Hey, if I’m on the road and work hard for a tie over 60 minutes, I’ll just take that point.” So to get overtime passed, the deal was that each team would get a point. I would think a lot of teams – especially the weaker ones – would have a problem giving up that point.

By: greatminnesotasportsmind

greatminnesotasportsmind — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:49:07 +0000

The NHL either needs to go back to the old format of either awarding 2 points for regulation win or 1 point each for a tie.

Other option is to award 3 points for a win in regulation. 2 points for overtime/shootout win and 1 point going to the loser.

Every game needs to be worth the same amount of points. Right now, it makes teams who get out to slow start virtually no chance to ever catch up.

By: icelovinbrotha215

icelovinbrotha215 — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:16:39 +0000

Iggy! You are the man. I totally agree. It’s a long season so the NHL needs to do everything to make every game in the 82 game schedule mean as much as possible.

By: cshearing

cshearing — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:41:38 +0000

One of the two has to happen. Having some games worth 2 points and others 3 is madness. Since we know the shoot-out is not going anywhere, I am more in favour of 3 points for a regulation win. A team not getting any points because it lost a skills competition does not it right with me.