Points System

[Bates]

I highly doubt you get many hockey people agreeing to let the gimick of the shootout determine all points awarded for the game.  The 3 points for winning in regulation is probably the solution most would find easiest to swallow.

 

[ZBBM]

Why not make it even simpler like in soccer, 3 points for a win, 1 point for a TIE.  No more OT/SO games at all in the regular season.  Yes, I brought back tie games, but with 3 points on the line for a win, teams are more apt to go for it.

The SO is here for good... Too many people like it. I recall Bettman saying as much earlier this season.

The SO is here as long as Bettman is because HE likes it.  After that, I wouldn't be so sure.

The novelty is long gone and the hardcore hockey fanbase is more traditionalist than in other sports.  The next commish could respect that, and ties could make a comeback. 

I personally like this points system:
2 points for a regulation win
1 point for an OT win
0 points for a tie
0 points for a loss

OT is 5 mins of 4/4 like now.  No damned shootouts at the end of it.  No scoring results in a tie.

It's simple, there are no loser points, and teams have no incentive to play for a tie.  The OTs could be crazy fun -- teams desperately needing points could even be pulling their goalie.

 

[McPwnage]

My system would be simple

2 points: win
0 points: loss
0 points: overtime loss
1 point: shootout loss

so you have to make it to the shootout to get a point.  That is only because I think shootouts aren't a very fair way to determine a game but they are entertaining and probably sticking around. 

 

[hockeyfan1]

A novel points system proposed by a biostatistician:

3 points for an overtime win.
0 points for an overtime loss.
Shootouts would retain the current points system.

In an article recently published in the Journal of Sports Economics, I examined the probabilities of overtime in the NHL?s three most recent point systems (pre-1999, 1999-00 to 2003-04 and 2005-06 to 2011-12) and found several statistically significant differences. First, overtime likelihood rose dramatically after a 1999 rule change guaranteed the overtime loser a point. Second, in the current point system, overtime likelihood has been dramatically higher in March and April, when teams push for the playoffs.

Lastly, teams have been playing overtime games at a significantly higher rate against non-conference opponents, with that effect only noticeable in games played since 2005. In fact, over the past two years, non-conference games went to overtime 23 percent more often than conference ones, with several teams appearing to have recognized the benefits to playing for overtime in these contests.

With next season?s realignment plan, teams are slated to play 28 or 32 non-conference games, substantially higher than the 18 non-conference games played in 2011-12. Further, while playoff eligibility is currently based on conference standings, future standards will have teams competing primarily against their divisional opponents for post-season spots. Overtime incentives currently highest in non-conference games will now extend to all non-divisional contents.

Proponents of the current structure suggest it keeps playoff races tighter, but alas this parity is artificial. As Bruins forward Jay Pandolfo correctly points out: ?It?s difficult to catch teams that are losing but still gaining a point.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/52635-NHL-in-need-of-new-threepoint-system.html

 

[TML fan]

2 points for a win
0 points for a loss
Both teams get 1 point for a shootout.
Shootout wins act as tie breaker.