# KK Members Blog

## If We’re Fixing All the Things Wrong With the NHL…

If the CBA is a working attempt to fix all the current problems in the NHL, can we also mention the Magic Point that appears in overtime games and is invisible in games that are decided in regulation? That is one of the most nonsensical rules ever devised.

The fix is quite simple (for those who payed attention in junior-high math): One game, one point. Period.

If Team A wins a regular-season hockey game in regulation, they are awarded one point. If the two teams are tied after regulation, the eventual winning team (via overtime play or the shootout) will be awarded 0.75 points, and Team B that lost in overtime will receive 0.25 points, still equaling the single point awarded for a single game. There's no reason for an extra point to *poof* into existence just because two teams cannot win in regulation. The winning team should not get the full value of the win because they could not triumph in 60 minutes, and the eventual losing team should get a twenty-five percent piece of the single-point pie for not losing in regulation. (Plus, the scaling is better: three overtime losses have equal weight to one overtime win and four OT losses equal a regulation win, rather than the current  two OT losses equaling the points of a single regulation win.)

This way, we might see teams actually play late into the third period as if they wanted to win the game, and not just skate around like they're auditioning for Battle of the Blades. All due respect.

I think this would put a little more game in the product, and take out gaming the rules for the magic point.

Filed in: NHL Talk, | KK Members Blog | Permalink

Fractions of points? Why not do what we do over here in Europe? Three points for a regulation win. Two points for an overtime/shootout win. One point if you lose in overtime/shootout.

Posted by Dakkster from Southern Sweden on 10/23/12 at 09:15 AM ET

It sounds like you’re proposing something like the European system, which great.. You’re offering 1 point for an overtime loss, 3 for an overtime win, and 4 for a regulation win.  No need to bring decimals into the equation, unless your problem is really just with whole numbers.

Posted by LivinLaVidaLockout on 10/23/12 at 09:30 AM ET

yea, fractions of points??? Lets not get complicated for no reason.

Posted by gretzky_to_lemieux on 10/23/12 at 09:53 AM ET

I wish they would simply play until they have a winner. Start with 10 minutes of 4-on-4 (it’s the best hockey you’ll see anyway and is far superior to 5-on-5), and if nobody scores, then 3-on-3 until someone scores.

The only thing bad with that is the demise of the shootout. I’m not for or against it, but kids love it and I think us grizzly adults need to respect that.

So if shootouts are to stay, I think the logical step would be to give 2 points for a regulation or OT win, and 1 point for a SO win, with no points going to a loser.

But here’s why the NHL will never, ever do that; because the 3-point game (38% of games end with 3 points award), creates a false sense of parity.
Only in the NHL can you win 3 out of 10 games and say you were .500 (3-3-4).
Owners can go back to fans and say “Hey, we had a great year playing .530 hockey! Buy your season’s tickets now!
“Nevermind that we were 12th in the conference, and we ‘earned’ a dozen points by losing in several shootout and OT games!”

The three point system is here to stay.
In the NHL, they do everything possible to make sure everyone’s a winner at the end of the night.
That’s because they’ve put so many teams in horrible markets, they have to do something in order to keep fans interested and create the illusion that they have a shot at making the playoffs.

Posted by Hank1974 on 10/23/12 at 11:56 AM ET

It’s a long season. I’m fine with two point games and ties being split 1-1 after the end of one OT period. The shootout needs to go away.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 10/23/12 at 12:03 PM ET

One game, one point. Period.

I’m with you here.

will be awarded 0.75 points

And here is where you lose me.

I wish they would simply play until they have a winner.

I’m with you here.

and if nobody scores, then 3-on-3 until someone scores.

And here’s where you lose me.

So if shootouts are to stay, I think the logical step would be to give 2 points for a regulation or OT win, and 1 point for a SO win, with no points going to a loser.

This doesn’t fix the problem of having some games worth a different number of points than other games.

But here’s why the NHL will never, ever do that; because the 3-point game (38% of games end with 3 points award), creates a false sense of parity.
Only in the NHL can you win 3 out of 10 games and say you were .500 (3-3-4).

So does the current system.  In fact, in the current system you can lose ten games in a row and claim to be .500 if you lose 10 straight games in OT or the SO.

The three point system is here to stay.

The problem is that it’s not a three point system. It’s a two-or-three point system.

Posted by Garth on 10/23/12 at 12:07 PM ET

The problem with ties is that neither team goes for the win in the 3rd period and certainly not in OT.
That’s why the NHL introduced the 3-point game.

I remember all too well during the dead-puck era when teams would just stare at each other in OT.
I also remember the worst mantra in sports “A road tie is better than a home win”.

I’d prefer there was a winner in every game and we put more value on a regulation win.

Posted by Hank1974 on 10/23/12 at 12:11 PM ET

Make every game worth a total of 3 points:

Regulation win = 3 points

Regulation loss = 0 points

OT/shootout win = 2 points

OT/shootout loss = 1 point

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 10/23/12 at 12:22 PM ET

The problem with ties is that neither team goes for the win in the 3rd period and certainly not in OT.

And that problem still exists, except you have teams playing defense in OT so that they can get to the shootout.

Bad teams know that anything can happen in the shootout when they are lucky to be tied at the end of regulation they will try to get to the shootout because they know that statistically it’s better to have Frans Nielson or Jussi Jokinen in the shootout than it is to have the Jarome Iginla -4th highest scorer in the NHL since the shootout- or Steven Stamkos who averages 45 goals a year through his career.

Posted by Garth on 10/23/12 at 12:30 PM ET

Posted by YzermanZetterberg on 10/23/12 at 01:22 PM ET

Yeah, but that means teams would set records for most points in a season, and it’s more retain old records than it is to have every game worth the same number of points!

Posted by Garth on 10/23/12 at 12:31 PM ET

At least while the Wings still hold the distinction, yes.

Posted by HockeytownOverhaul on 10/23/12 at 12:34 PM ET

Ties aren’t so bad. Never understood the obsessive hatred for ties.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 10/23/12 at 01:44 PM ET

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Smileys

#### Most Recent Blog Posts

If you want to be a hockey writer, be our special guest!

We’re giving the KK community a chance to add their two-bits. Sign up to be a KK member, write your piece, and be heard right here on one of the Internet’s most visited hockey news websites.

## How to Post

More details here. But basically, just use the posting page to write anything you like on what's going on in the hockey news or your analysis of the NHL and your favorite team.

We only ask that you avoid profanity, and that you're careful to credit your sources -- news media or other bloggers -- and provide links to those other sites when appropriate.

Need help? Check out our help page.