Three Points Per Game: Good Idea

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Last year I e-mailed John Buccigross of ESPN with the comment that I thought that since the NHL was going to a no tie format with the shoot-out in regular season, that they should now award three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime win and one point for an overtime loss. He return e-mailed me that this would never happen in the “can not change” NHL. Now the NHL is discussing this idea. This only seemed to make sense.
If you are going to award one point for losing, winning should be that much more important. Teams needing points towards the end of the season would try that much harder to win in regulation because of the extra point. This would make for some very exciting hockey.

I fully understand awarding one point for forcing overtime. If both teams play well enough to be equal on the scoreboard after regulation time is up, then earning at least one point seems fair. But why should a team who beats an opponent in regulation get the same reward as a team that has to go to overtime or to the shoot-out to win?

I’m all for nostalgia and “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mentality, but I think the points system is broke and this may be a solution.

About Chris Wassel

Simply I am a hockey writer who is a jack of all trades. Whether it is draft, fantasy, NHL, KHL, AHL, etc...I probably can write about it. The challenge in hockey is to be able to step out of your comfort zone and write like you are still there. Hopefully you enjoy the humor in the writing on the site and tell your friends. Thanks for reading!

Quantcast