The W
Views: 97814888
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.7.14 1236
The W - Hockey - I know you lost but here's a point for you anyways
This thread has 13 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.07
Pages: 1
(482 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (14 total)
Net Hack Slasher
Banger








Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3504 days
Last activity: 1924 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.55
I don't like the guaranteed point in overtime. I can't stand looking at the standing sheet and seeing overtime lose +1Point. Come on keep it simple wins 2points, Tie 1 point and if you lose sorry you have nothing.

Not to be all negative I do love the 4 on 4 in overtime, that's exciting stuff. The argument of everyone plays for the tie in overtime can't be really used with the 4 on 4 rule because it's much harder to play all out defense with so much ice... Plus can't you use same argument for the 55th to 60th minute of regulation time if the sore is tied because both teams would be playing to go to overtime to get the guaranteed point?

NHL took a good step forward in 4 on 4 Overtime but then took one back with the confusing Guaranteed point even if you lose system... Personally I wouldn't mind then going 4 on 4 for Five minutes (actually I wouldn't mind having 4 on 4 for 60 minutes but the Hockey smarks would have me frozen) then have a Shoot out and lets have just Wins and Loses... In regulation of course because you can't decide a playoff games with shootouts.



Christmas is the one time of year when people of all religions come together to worship Jesus Christ.

Promote this thread!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 14 min.
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
The argument for awarding a point for an overtime loss was "coaches will be conservative and play for the tie, so let's give them a point anyway and make them play all-out for the extra point."



Oh Tino...put some pants on for God's sake.-- Chuckc14 in the Worst Album Covers thread Click Here (The W)

Manny [Ramirez] could show up for spring training with ice-blue hair, a "Free Lee Boyd Malvo" tattoo and a batting helmet made out of chorizo and I wouldn't be surprised. Hey, it's just Manny being Manny.-- Bill Simmons

Watching "Mad Dog Time" is like waiting for the bus in a city where you're not sure they have a bus line.-- Roger Ebert
Bullitt
Shot in the dark








Since: 11.1.02
From: Houston

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 19 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.98
If you're going to keep the point for an overtime loss, then make the win worth THREE points...give the team something to play for.





This one's super lucky!
fuelinjected
Banger








Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3177 days
Last activity: 3177 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.15
The normal Overtime used to be horrible because both teams were afraid to make a move.

The guranteed point is good and not exactly complex. The game ended in regulation with a tie. Therefore, both teams should get 1 point, they earned it. Now they'll play five minutes of 4-on-4 for an extra point.

I dislike the idea of ending a game with a Shootout. Would you decide a football game with a longest field goal competition? A basketball game with a 3 Point Shootout? A baseball game with a homerun competition? It might sound neat or fun but it ignores too many aspects of the game.
Gugs
Bierwurst








Since: 9.7.02
From: Sleep (That's where I'm a viking)

Since last post: 433 days
Last activity: 24 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.22
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    Would you decide a football game with a longest field goal competition? A basketball game with a 3 Point Shootout? A baseball game with a homerun competition?


1. No. I want one full fifteen minute quarter to determine a winner.
2. No. I love the way basketball does overtime.
3. No. Baseball has the best "overtime" of any sport.



    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Cheering for the Yankees is like watching a Yokozuna v. Barry Horowitz match.
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 220 days
Last activity: 1 day
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.96
    Originally posted by gugs
      Originally posted by fuelinjected
      Would you decide a football game with a longest field goal competition? A basketball game with a 3 Point Shootout? A baseball game with a homerun competition?


    1. No. I want one full fifteen minute quarter to determine a winner.
    2. No. I love the way basketball does overtime.
    3. No. Baseball has the best "overtime" of any sport.


Agreed. The only thing that exceeds extra innings in baseball for sheer awesomeness is...NHL overtime during the playoffs. "Play until it's over".



FLAMES: 12-8-1-3; 28pts
SURVIVOR: PEARL ISLANDS: 5 Remain [Darrah, Jon, Sandra, Burton & Lillian]
TOP 10 FILMS OF 2003 [So Far]: Mystic River, Lost In Translation, Finding Nemo, Seabiscuit, Kill Bill V1, X2: X-Men United, Open Range, Pirates of the Caribbean, Matchstick Men & The Last Samurai
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 14 min.
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.08
The point for a loss also irks me. Although it's unlikely to happen, a team could win 22 games, and lose 60 in overtime, and get 104 points.

3 points for a win, like they do in soccer? I don't know...then you'd have teams finishing with 150+ points...the tradition of the game would be thrown out the window.

The key is to get teams scoring again, but I don't know that changes to the awarding of points is the way to do it.
fuelinjected
Banger








Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3177 days
Last activity: 3177 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.15
Three points makes no sense. Why should a team get MORE points because they couldn't get the job done in regulation?

It's not a point for a loss. It's a point for a tie and an OT Loss in the standings. You didn't lose the game (you tied it), you lost the five minute battle for one point.
Hobbes
Cotechino








Since: 10.12.01
From: Kelowna

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.95
I hate the OTL. I know why it's there, to create excitement for the game but it's just insane. Have you ever tried to explain the OTL to someone just getting into hockey? My Dad has watched hockey since he was a kid and sometimes he still has a hard time grasping it. How is it fair that some games are worth three points and others are worth two? If my memory serves me correctly, a OTL just counts as a loss for a goaltender, making it actually possible for a goalie to have more losses than his entire team in a season. Things like this are just insane.

Yes, changes do need to be made to the game to make it more exciting but there has to be a line drawn when looking at these changes. There are differences between simple tweaks that are part of maintaining an evolving sport and drastic panic moves to attract more fans that change the sport into something almost unrecognizable. If you want to increase scoring why not drill some holes into the ice and have pucks that fall into them count as goals as well? Because it wouldn't be hockey. Yeah, that's a drastic example but you get the picture.

You want to know what might be a pretty major step in making the game more exciting? Something that would address one of the roots of the problem? Getting rid of some teams. You know why more and more teams are playing trap style hockey? Because with a 30 team league there are some teams that just do not have the talent to win games any other way. I don't blame teams like the Minnesota Wild for playing the trap, they simply do not have the talent to play open firewagon brand hockey.

But I truly doubt that will happen, both sides are too greedy. It would mean less NHL jobs for a lot of borderline players and the owners would look like...well, what they really are. People who don't care about the sport itself and only expanded in every direction because of the huge short term payoffs it would give them. So instead we'll see a lot more quick fixes from the league that brought us the glowing puck. Fantastic.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 19 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.19
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    Three points makes no sense. Why should a team get MORE points because they couldn't get the job done in regulation?


I think the idea was three points for ANY win, so the overtime loss point isn't such a big thing. In fact, you might make the OT win only two points (each team gets one point for the regulation tie, and you play for the third point in OT...if there's no goal in OT no one gets that point.)
Bullitt
Shot in the dark








Since: 11.1.02
From: Houston

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 19 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.06
I meant three points for the outright win, regardless of when it happens...in regulation or in overtime. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that was one of the rule changes thrown around when the OTL came in, but was discarded.

    Originally posted by Hobbes
    So instead we'll see a lot more quick fixes from the league that brought us the glowing puck. Fantastic.


Oh, God...not THIS again.

The NHL didn't give us the glowing puck...Fox did. And heaven forbid they were TRYING to help newbies understand the game by helping them follow the puck on TV.

The glowing puck was NEVER intended for those of us who grew up on hockey; it was intended to help newcomers get into the game. It was intended to reach the audience, the casual fan in the States let's call it, that the NHL NEEDS to survive.

Why was this fact lost of virtually EVERYONE??







This one's super lucky!
fuelinjected
Banger








Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3177 days
Last activity: 3177 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.15
The glowing puck was horrid in execution and downright stupid in it's concept. We'll make the puck glow because you're too stupid to follow it around the ice! Now it glows so you'll love the game!

You're right that it was FOX's stupidity and not the NHL.

They should knock out a few teams though. Even if you took out 4 teams, that's removing about 3 marginal players from each existing team. Sometimes you have take one step back to take two steps forward.

The problem isn't scoring. Everyone talks about scoring. You don't need more scoring. I've seen plenty of thrilling 1-1 games over my lifetime as a hockey fan. But they were 1-1 with 30-40 shots per team and exceptional goaltending. Tons of action and tons of great saves. It's the 1-1 games with like 2 shots in a period that are killing the game.

It's not obstruction, there was always obstruction. It's not the trap, there was always the trap. It's the fact that there's a bunch of players playing in the NHL that don't belong there.
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst








Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2460 days
Last activity: 562 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.10
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      Originally posted by fuelinjected
      Three points makes no sense. Why should a team get MORE points because they couldn't get the job done in regulation?


    I think the idea was three points for ANY win, so the overtime loss point isn't such a big thing. In fact, you might make the OT win only two points (each team gets one point for the regulation tie, and you play for the third point in OT...if there's no goal in OT no one gets that point.)


I think this is on the right track...Mathematics-wise, 4 point games would work out quite well.

4 pts for a win, 0 for a loss
3 pts for OT win, 1 for OT loss
2 pts for a tie.

That way, every game is worth the same amount of points, no decimals or fractions to worry about, and you can just divide by two to calculate the teams performance versus teams from the "2 pts for a win" era.

It makes more sense than the current system.



-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.04
I am all for the way the ECHL used to do it, play a full overtime period, and if no score, THEN go to the shootout. If you cant get jacked about a shootout after seeing a great 4 period hockey game, and all the tension it brings, then something is wrong with you!
Thread rated: 6.07
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Who will take it all?
Next thread: NHL Quater Pole of Season
Previous thread: CUJO
(482 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I just saw Claude Lemieux play in a charity game and that guy can still play. He's had a lot of shady moments in his career that take away from his talent and great moments. Its a shame because if you strip away the cheap shots, he was a great player.
Related threads: NHL Quater Pole of Season - Outdoors Game - Hall of Fame Inductions - More...
The W - Hockey - I know you lost but here's a point for you anywaysRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.085 seconds.