Tiebreakers @ the end of the season

Millz

LGB
Staff member
V.I.P.
#1
So apparently the NHL GM's are talking about regarding tiebreakers at the end of the season, when teams end up with the same amount of points. Instead of looking at overall wins to determine who gets the higher seed, they might change the rule and look at wins in regulation time to determine tiebreakers. So I think they're saying that wins in regulation time will be worth 3 points, and overtime/SO wins will be worth 2 points. What do you guys think about this?

So it would be a 3-2-1 point system.
 
#2
I don't know, that might work. I guess you should get the extra point for ending it in regulation - it's not fair that a team can lose in overtime/SO and almost get as many points as the winner. I'd be down with that.
 

Turbo

Registered Member
#3
i say 2 points for a win and 0 points for a loss. this point for getting to OT or a SO is causing havoc in the standings resulting in the crazy race for the lower positions in the playoff race. either you win or lose, its time we get rid of this sympathy point thing.
 

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
#4
I am with Turbo, I believe it should be two points for a win in regulation/overtime/shootout and zero points for a lost. Why should a team get a point for a losing a game, even if it's in overtime or shootout, doesn't make much sense to me.
 

Millz

LGB
Staff member
V.I.P.
#5
I like the point for overtime losses because it makes you try harder in OT. Before we used to get a ton of ties because everyone was so concerned with getting 1 point at least that they didnt give it their all in the overtime. I just think it's extra incentive.
 

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
#6
But don't you think teams will try harder in overtime if only the winner gets two points? I believe it makes it more competetive that way.
 

Millz

LGB
Staff member
V.I.P.
#7
But don't you think teams will try harder in overtime if only the winner gets two points? I believe it makes it more competetive that way.
Maybe, maybe not. I just like rewarding teams for having a good game like that. I think 3-2-1 would make things alot more interesting.
 

Turbo

Registered Member
#8
teams don't play fully a lot of times just to get the 1 point. then you get crappy teams in the playoffs because they squeeked in through a lot of one point games.

i say make it 2 for the win and 0 for the loss and watch how teams start flying to get the win sooner and might result in less games going to OT or SO.
 
#9
I don't think many teams squeak in by getting a "sympathy" point here or there, and if other teams don't want their spots taken by those teams - win in the first 60 minutes, it's that simple. I think the 3-2-1 thing would work just fine.
 
Last edited:

Turbo

Registered Member
#10
i think this 3-2-1 one idea will result in more playoff congestion like we're having this season. i'm still for my 2 or nothing idea.
------
so i was watching nhl live today and bill clement shared a points idea that was told to him. 2 points for a win in regulation or OT, 1 point for a win from shootout, and zero points for the loss.
 
Last edited: