Overtime Points

Over the weekend TSN’s Dave Hodge was talking about getting rid of the 3 point games. When 2 teams a forced to go into overtime or a shootout, he suggests that the loosing team should get no points instead of 1 point,and the winning team obviously gets the 2 points. His words were ” If you win, you get the 2 points, if you loose, you loose, it’s that simple”.

However I disagree, the team that looses fought hard for 3 full periods and they should not be going away empty handed. By getting rid of the losing point in overtime it pressures teams to play harder because their whole games hard work could be all for nothing, so that is one advantage.

The average of overtime games being played by each team so far this season is about 8-12 games, so that is a gurantee 8-12 points added to a teams record, and keeps the playoff race in a tight squeeze, leaving it more exciting.

How do you think the overtime points should be decided?

74 Responses to Overtime Points

  1. muckies says:

    This is one of the greatest playoff races ever, it will come down to the final period of game 82 for 3-4 teams in each conference.

    Could you imagine going into game 82, 6th in your conference and end up out of the playoffs, its the best playoff race in years, maybe ever.

    I’ve never watched the race so closely in my life, its an awesome system! Don’t change anything.

  2. Beattie says:

    Lost all credibility after that last sentence. Why do people want to change playoff overtime?? Anybody who wants to mess with it, I seriously wonder about there passion & understanding of the game?? Playoff hockey is like the holy grail of the sport man you can’t all of a sudden change it to 4-on-4??? The regular season sure change anything you want (well lets not go too far) but you can’t mess with whats best about our game!!! A hockey game was meant to be played 5-on-5, it always has been played that way. Hell why dont we at the half way mark subsitute the goalie with a defenseman and add a second puck that sounds interesting???

  3. toronto77 says:

    it’s kind of interesting, just like in soccer

  4. almelo95 says:

    I’m not arguing that and I certainly don’t begrudge the fact that they are tied in the standings. I have no particular rooting interest in either team. Maybe Vancouver has a better record in overtime/shootouts. I don’t know those stats. All I’m saying is that wins should matter more than overtime losses and I think that a 3 point system would reflect that. Why should a regulation game be worth 2 points and overtime games worth 3?

  5. Gretzkin says:

    That’s true!

    Excitement’s already there.

  6. Gretzkin says:

    Almost the same, except your awarding a point for an OT loss, and I am not, but yeah, almost identicle.

    I read yours after I had written mine, so I didn’t bite yours, by the way. I was going to make a note on your post saying as much.

    I like yours idea, but I think the idea of losing as plain losing, no matter how far you get.

    And the 1 point for the shootout makes sense to me, as it’s a gimmick.

    It would separate the true winners from the true losers.

    This whole playoff race wouldn’t be as interesting as it is this year if these ideas were the case, so I’m not sure there’s exactly a problem with the current system.

    It’s pretty fun to actually have to watch what the others are doing, as it effects your team directly.

    I’ve been scoreboard watching like a Mu*****a!

    Though, under our ideas, my Oilers would be out of the playoffs I assume. 12 OT/SO Losses… but that’s just the way it would be I guess. Then again, it would change the mindset of the entire games and strategies, so those stats wouldn’t be the same, likely.

    You know, simple space and time continuum stuff… Back to the Future Rules!

  7. 92-93 says:

    no i know you didn’t copy my idea.

    i did think of it myself though but i am sure others out there have thought of it as well.

    i’ve always scoreboard watched when i was kid. i remember just before the leafs got gilmour, there were seasons where they leafs would be like 10 pts out with 5 games remaining and i’d be like ‘if the leafs won their last 5 games and the 3 teams they were chasing lost all their games the they’ll make it!’ lol.

    but of course i am kinda doing that this year with them come to think of it.

    the leafs always seem to be one of those teams that never tied (they usually ended up with like 5 ties) and that hasn’t changed with the OTL’s (and most of their OTL’s are from shootout loses, they’ve only lost once 4-on-4 in OT). maybe its pat quinn’s style i dunno. but if you look at boston, they are always a team that gets 10 or more ties/OTL’s etc. they won the division that way a couple season’s ago.

    i do think that the NHL will alter this system but not for a few seasons yet and i dont blame them. if you change it ever year than it gets really ridiculous. i have never been a fan of the shootout, i just dont like it and never will. but its a part of the game and i accept it. but, like you, i think it should be minimized as much as possible in terms of the impact it has on the standings.

  8. Stuv_Dogg says:

    I see your points, but I gotta disagree.

    Re: Energy and passion. Theoretically, these guys play their asses off when they lose. So, if we’re awarding points for effort, then the losing team should get points, as well. Then these points become useless and we’re back to square one. I don’t buy your points-for-effort argument. On the flip side, some teams don’t have to play their asses of to win, but get the points regardless. Again, I’m not buying your points-for-effort suggestion.

    I also disagree with your baseball analogy. Baseball is more of an endurance sport. Hockey players play every three or four games, granted in a more physically demanding sport. However, the wear and tear on baseball players, going out each and every day, is not insignificant.

    However, let’s leave baseball alone and switch to football. I would argue that football is more physically intense than hockey, and the NFL uses the W/L/T system (although in the 2005-06 season there were no ties), yet teams were ranked by winning percentage. So, an overtime loss would negatively impact winning percentage and have significant playoff implications, so again I don’t buy the points-for-blood/sweat/tears argument.

    The more I think of it, the more the winning percentage makes sense. Maybe I’ll see if PaulK123 can get me a meeting with JFJ (since they’re so tight) and I can plead my case to JFJ before moving up to NHL HQ.

  9. Kraut182 says:

    Just an addition for the people saying they should go only wins/loses just like football, basketball and baseball.

    First of all football has ties, they are just very rare. If nobody scores in an NFL overtime period (15 minutes), then its a tie. And I think its a tie in the CFL if the teams are tied through 3 of their possesion thingies.

    And in basketball/baseball they don’t stop playing if they’re still tied. It’s not like they play one basketball OT and then go to halfcourt shots to win the game, or a homerun derby after 11 innings in baseball. But hockey does, and pretty much has to, stop eventually so its hard to compare the sports.

  10. gemini_the_drunk says:

    Hey, ASS! That will never happen. The double, triple, quadruple, and beyond overtimes are the best games in any sport period. I am a Stars fan and we are 11-0 in the shootout this season. I still would never vote in shootouts into the postseason. Even if Dallas went on to lose every playoff game in double overtime, it would not matter. Playoff hockey is perfect and I mean PERFECT just the way it is currently. DAMN, I can’t wait for the playoffs! It has been so long!

  11. gemini_the_drunk says:

    The Stars and Ducks went to 5 overtimes in 2003. They were trying to kick me out of the bar because they were closing! Do you believe that? Needless to say, I didn’t leave until the game was over. Damn Ducks.

  12. Gretzkin says:

    Scoreboard watching has always been a thing with me too.

    Especially since the Oilers have always been squeekers for the bottomn playoff spot, plus with the internet and easy internet hockey pools it just adds that much more interest.

    check out http://www.cbs.sportsline.com

    I think it has the best in game scoreboard, aside from nhl.com

    TSN’s in game coverage licks.

    Have you noticed that your Maple Leafs problem of the last decade seems to be, to me, that they have the inabilty to play the second period?

    Here’s a link to an article that sums up what happened with the Leafs this year. It’s a pretty good timeline of what went wrong, and why they didn’t do anything about it…


    I’m going to see Buffalo on Saturday night. Probably the worst seats I’ve ever sat in, but it should be fun anyways. I haven’t made it to the ACC this year.

  13. gemini_the_drunk says:

    All kidding aside, people really are dumb. The half points would throw people off.

  14. FlamingHomer says:

    The reasoning behind this is:

    After playing 3 periods of hockey, players get tired. if they continue to play longer than that, obviously they get more tired. Quite often this shows especially in 2nd 3rd etc. overtime periods. If you get down to 2 forwards per shift, you now have 6 lines to roll instead of 4 so we don’t have to watch guys dragging their ass around the ice during long overtimes. That is the only reason for my suggestion. Other than that, the regular system is OK.

  15. Kamakaze says:

    I’ve said it over and over…

    I think the point system needs to be rethought, but I don’t think they need to take away a point, I think they need to add one… I say:

    3 points for a Regulation win.

    1 point (each) for an Over Time tie.

    2 points for an Over Time win.

    1 point for a Shoot Out win.

    Makes playing TEAM hockey a lot more valuable and (in theory) make teams play harder in regulation for more points (which in turn makes for more scoring chances, because one or both teams will be pressuring offensively, which can lead to all kinds of turn-overs, odd-man rushes, lots of shots, etc….), while still making Over Time and Shoot Out hockey worth while and exciting.

    More than likely won’t EVER happen, but man it’s nice to think about…

  16. Kamakaze says:

    Just read some others who think there should be a 3-point Regulation win system… nice to know I’m not the other one.

  17. 92-93 says:

    yeah, i’ve read every article out there about ‘what went wrong’ with the leafs.

    its funny, here you have a bunch of toronto writers who have said from day 1 that the leafs sucked.

    but the way the continually produce these stories makes it sound like that each of them were convinced at one point that this was a good squad and had only recently had their hopes dashed. so they react by writing an overly negative article.

    my point is, if they just kept their perspective on things – re: this being a transition year, the leafs being a .500 team that may or may not make the playoffs and if they did they’d be gone in round 1 – all of this post-morten/what-went-wrong stuff would be completely unnecessary. the signings they made in the offseason were obviously temporary signings that were done because of their position with the cap and their (faulty) strategy of not buying out Belfour, etc.

    this was never supposed to be ‘the year.’ this was supposed to be a year in which some young guys played, the leafs could see if Allison, lindros, etc. could still play, etc. … that’s it. and by that measure the leafs were successful. now all of this over-reaction and hyberbole when in reality, the groundwork with the scouts, the marlies in toronto, maurice, button, etc. has already been laid and underway.

    but the focus is on the on-ice product for the 2005-2006 season right? so no one is paying any attention to the solid play of the young guys, the solid play of the marlies, and the position the leafs will be in for next season’s cap. its just really frustrating … not the leafs play this year … but the way people lose the plot so easily (even very very smart individuals like nords here on HTR).

  18. 92-93 says:

    also, i’ve stated elsewhere that the leafs suck in the 2nd period.

    the best article to read in my opinion: teresa tedesco’s national post article. don’t read Simmons and read Cox but keep in mind he is one of those writers who predicted the leafs’ mediocrity this year, only to write as if he is shocked they are where they are now.

    the buffalo game, i predict, will be an awesome game. you’ll see a younger, revitalized leaf team and a struggling Sabres squad that always seems to get up for toronto games. my prediction: buffalo 5, toronto 4 in OT.

  19. Destancio says:

    I personally have disliked the 3 point system ever since it came into existence several years ago. It is a violation of tradition and of fairness, in that it gives a varying amount of points to other teams in my team’s conference, based on nothing but the time at which they happen to have scored goals.

    That being said, and with tradition already screwed, I put forth the only true and fair solution, which offers the same amount of points in every game and which properly awards each degree of loss and victory:


    Regulation Win: 5 Points

    Regulation Loss: 0 Points

    Overtime Win: 4 Points

    Overtime Loss: 1 Point

    Shootout Win: 3 Points

    Shootout Loss: 2 Points

    It is brilliant. It keeps things fair, and encourages teams to try to end the game as soon as possible.

  20. Gretzkin says:

    Good points, and very true.

    I like reading Cox, because I enjoy his perspective most of time. He’s a Red Wings fan, and I think really the only one in the Toronto media market that isn’t a total homer.

    Not saying that I agree with everything he says, just that he’s the most non-Leafs biased out there. Sometimes a little too much, but reading all of the Leaf stuff out there can be a bit annoying.

    Should be a good tilt, and good prediction. The Leafs can’t play in Buffalo, but they have nice close games in Toronto.

    Roli the Goalie got a Shutout last night!?!?!?

    Who’d a thunk it!

  21. rojoke says:

    Your example is precisely why the point system as it is now is flawed. You have the Oilers at 37-35-10, and as you say, above .500, and the Predators at 38-40-4, two games below. But in actuality, the Predators have a better win-loss record. The Oilers would have lost 45 games, either in regulation, overtime or shooutot, whereas the Predators would lost only 44. The .500 mark is not a true .500 because not every game sees the same point distribution. That single point for losing after 60 minutes is what throws everything out of whack.

  22. Gretzkin says:

    Here’s an interesting article from TSN.

    They did the math, yet didn’t include head to head result.

    The funny thing is, the only team of the 16 playoff bound teams today, only the Oilers would be out. They would switch places with San Jose at this point.


  23. rojoke says:

    Then if you want to go that route, why not adopt a rule that rugby uses, where if a team scores more than 5 tries, it receives a bonus point. It might even lead to more offence.

    Why should there be a “degree of loss and victory” as you put it? Bonus points for shutouts? Of course, under your system, you would have to differentiate between each win, so the standings would look something like this:

    GP — W — OTW — SOW — L — OTL — SOL

    That’s six columns in the standings. People were confused enough when they introduced the OTL column, they’ll be absolutely lost with this, which will turn the uninitiated potential fan away. And that is the last thing the league wants, to turn potential fans away with confusing stats sheets in the paper every morning.

  24. Beattie says:

    I realize that they have a better win/loss record but do you really think they are the better team with that record?? They have one more win in a shiatty division… You are really backing up my point in a way thanks 😉

    I just think that over an 82 game schedule its better to have a point system not so cut and dry (points or no points/0 points for a OT or SO loss) because I think you earn something when you make it to the end of regulation tied. Like my first example again: If 2 different teams play the habs – 1 team loses 6-0 in a blowout, the 2nd team loses 2-1 in a shootout. The point awarded to the 2nd team gets them 1 up o the team that blew it 6-0. You seperate the 2 losing teams by 1 point because one was oviously better – although they did stil lose.

Leave a Reply