Should the NHL Go To 3-2-1 Point System?

[SaveByRichter35]

New York Rangers' analyst, Steve Valiquette, recently posted a video about the NHL going to a 3-2-1 point system.  3 points for a regulation/OT win, 2 points for shootout win, 1 point for OT/shootout loss.  Video compares what today's standings would look like with each point system.  It's kind of Ranger geared since its from the MSG Network but the point still stands.  It's only 3:25 long so check it out.  

http://www.msgnetworks.com/videos/should-the-nhl-switch-to-a-3-2-1-point-system/

[TheGoalNet]

I've been saying this for years. However, I don't think it will happen. Close standings = better ratings and more attention to the league down the stretch 

[SaveByRichter35]

There really isn't that much of a difference.  There aren't any teams that really pull away.  

[Mike24]

I don't like awarding teams point(s) for losing the game. Regardless how long the game goes.   Yeah I'm getting old. 

[mik]

I do not like frequent changes in rules and the system just to the "league must equalize". btw. I'm not a fan of the way the current 3 x 3 overtime.

[WillyGrips13]

I know my view is probably unpopular. I prefer the European soccer model. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, no points for a loss. No overtime. This model would cause greater separation. I'm sure the league wouldn't want teams out of it sooner. Also most North Americans don't like ties. Of course these days, I watch more soccer than hockey, so that's where I'm coming from. I've probably watched three hockey games all season. 

[mik]

Wins should be benefited, but I think this works with european footbal and hockey unclosed leagues, when the teams last fall down the league and vice versa. In this case there is always something to play well in the last rounds of the competition. In the NHL, as it is certain that the team does not progress to the playoffs, often begins "play for the best place in the draft".

 

[Hockey School Dropout]

I agree with the no points for a loss.  3 pts for a win and 1 for a tie would cause a LOT of rapid standings changes, and imho would make the stretch all that more interesting.  Plus, it would make the playing for a draft pick teams more obvious.

[MTH]

Old thread but I was discussing this over the weekend. NHL network had Gretzky highlights on. Noticed how I missed terrible teams. The lame points system now rewards teams for holding on to ties. So teams work hard at it - AKA boring as hell hockey.

But, when teams are so far out (Hartford all of the 80s), they just say f it and do whatever. Teams would score 10 goals on them? So what? 300 fights? why not?

Now garbage mediocre teams are 'on the cusp' and play that way too long.

If it's your team you root for, you're not watching more because they still can make the playoffs. You know they're dead meat and pretty much tune out the 'we're only 3 points out of the 8 spot' crap because every team is only a handful of points out of the 8 spot...

Christ, the Panthers were a sub 500 team last year, yet they had 81 points?! It's mad. A paltry 14 points fewer than the 8 spot team (Leafs). So the Panthers were "in it" nearly to the end of the season with a garbage team.

Worse yet, there was just one team below 69 points (Colorado with 48). How many teams were junk yet had a fair quantity of points?

In 1985 - there were 6 of 21 teams that were below 69 points. And three teams were north of 100 (Oilers 119!).

You need bad teams to make stars stand out. The Oilers in 85 had scored 426 goals while allowing 310 (+116 difference)

Meanwhile the best scoring team last year was the Caps with 263 goals, 182 allowed (+81 difference).

Goal scoring dominant teams makes stars. Terrible teams full of goons and dirt ball players also become stars. 32 teams of mediocrity is just that, mediocre.