With Calgary’s overtime loss to Colorado yesterday, I have to say I have had enoughtI have had it! With playoff spots so closely contested at the moment, having points handed out for losses is ridiculous. Although the Canucks have benifited greatly from this ridiculous thinking, I would prefer that my team would get into the playoffs without participation marks. So:
3 points handed out in overtime as compared to two in regulation- this has no parallel. It doesn’t provide insurance to a team playing all out in overtime, this is evident to anyone who watches overtime. Rather, it builds a conservative game plan for 60 minutes knowing that no matter what, your team will have a point.
4 on 4- This theory is now moot with the introduction of the three point overtime and shootout. How much change do you need before you look back and say “Wow- this has gotten out of hand.” I understand why they went this way, but I think the experiment is over and should return to 5 on 5.
Shootout- Exciting? YES! Gimmicky? YES! I am on the fence with the shootout, how much better was it that the ‘Winter Classic’ ended with Crosby scoring the winner in the shootout? I think a million times better. What I like about the shootout is it is a goodway to attract new fans and does bring a certain amount of excitement to the end of a game. What I hate about the shootout is the Edmonton Oilers, they are a shinning example of why this system does not work. How can more than half your vicitories come from an after practice skill contest? Oilers fans are proud of this! What the hell man!
Another effect the shootout has had is that it trivializes the penalty shot- aka the most awesome thing ever. The shootout will always keep you on the edge of your seat as there is a do or die element and that pretty much defines suspense. However, when a penalty shot is awarded, what use to be so damn wicked you break your friends arm high fiving him when it was awarded, has now become dull as ‘penalty shots’ are no longer rare- see point on Oilers.
Standings- I don’t even know where to go on this one, do they mean anythng anymore? The only reason why the standings are as close as they are is due to this stupid three point, overtime loss rule. I am sure someone out there has a website that shows the team standings if it was simply win or lose and I would bet my firstborn (they are always the worst ones) that parity would not exist. I think the three point rule inflates bad teams records and reduces the point tallies of the good teams. Should a team just get breakaway specialist, clog the game up and then use their advantage in the shootout? This, to me, would be the death of the NHL.
Anyway, you can’t talk shit without solutions so here is what I suggest:
a)Overtime back to 5 on 5. Get rid of the minor league shinny game to finish a normally entertaining game.
b)No more two for a win and one for an overtime loss rule. This rule made no sense from the begining and really does make the league look Mickey Mouse. As far as the three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime win, 1 for an overtime loss and zero for a regulation loss is just plain stupid and complicated. Unless the NHL wants to attract the coveted statisticans demographic, they should abandon any thought of this. How would the standings read: (WOT) (LOT) (L) (PTS)? The legend for the standings would be half a page long.
I propose two points for a win, zero points for a loss.
c)Shootout- keep it, but…. Have three shooter per team, if there is no winner, tie game, go home. I know it would be a bit anticlimatic but perhaps with two points on the line we would see more urgency. I believe this to be the only point of contention on the matter, but something needs to be done and when you think of all the ridiculous gimmicks that have been tried it is not that unusual.