I Hate Mondays: What's The Point?

[Vegas Dave]

Since the new NHL has returned, I haven’t heard anything but praise and plaudits for the changed game.

That’s great, but it still doesn’t alter my typically sour Monday mood.

I want to know why NHL teams get a point for an overtime loss?

The winning team is awarded two points, a regulation...
Full Article

[BtownJay]

Great article Dave! I couldn't agree more. We have a thread hanging out here somewhere talking about this. Its a joke that a winless team (Penguins) could be 2 points behind a team with 3 wins (Flyers). Or that same winless Pens team can be tied with an Islanders team that has 2 wins. Simply because they get to overtime before they lose?

[Vegas Dave]

That's a really good point - I should have put the standings into the mix.

The Penguins keep losing in overtime and for some reason that keeps helping them.

It's just ludicrous.

[Gunnerman]

Guys, guys, guys please don't be so bitter. The Pens are reaping rewards as they are prescribed in the rules right now. The Pens have ZERO wins and are not in last place!

Just wait til they start to click, Muhahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Crewe]

Originally Posted by Gunnerman

Guys, guys, guys please don't be so bitter. The Pens are reaping rewards as they are prescribed in the rules right now. The Pens have ZERO wins and are not in last place!

Just wait til they start to click, Muhahahahahahahahahahaha!

to me that says it all. No wins and not in last place.

[Ishkur]

Originally Posted by Vegas Dave

I want to know why NHL teams get a point for an overtime loss?

Two things:

1) To force teams to go for broke in the overtime period, thus curtailing the proliferation of ties, which were quite rampant in the late 90s due to defensive strategies that smothered competitive play and made the game--including overtime--quite boring.

2) Now that they've eliminated ties, the overtime loss point still stands because a shootout is a fucking bullshit way to settle a TEAM SPORT, thus it stands to reason that no team should be penalized with a loss for working their asses off for 65 minutes only to have it taken away from them via an unjustified trivial abstraction.

Understand?

Originally Posted by Vegas Dave

Maybe I was mistaken but I thought the goal of sports was to pit two teams against each other and determine a winner and a loser.

Exactly. Two teams. Not a bunch of individuals.

The shootout may settle who the winner is....but it has no place deciding who the loser is.

If you remove the overtime loss, then you must remove the shootout.

[Vegas Dave]

Well if you don't like the shootout, obviously you don't like NCAAF or CFL overtime either.

I'm not a fan of eliminating special teams and defense from the game.

I don't understand why they can't just play 4-on-4 until someone scores. If you have ever watched 4-on-4 you know it's end-to-end with numerous scoring opportunities and it would be pretty rare to see a game hit double OT.

[Shane]

Originally Posted by Vegas Dave

I don't understand why they can't just play 4-on-4 until someone scores. If you have ever watched 4-on-4 you know it's end-to-end with numerous scoring opportunities and it would be pretty rare to see a game hit double OT.

I have said this for the last 5 or 6 years. The reason why it won't happen is because you won't be able to get a TV contract for an even longer NHL game. ESPN did such a great job of making it boring in the US, that adding minutes makes it's value decrease.

I would watch it, but Joe Blow, and potential new "fans" would not. They would rather see a 1 on nothing competition that lasts about 2 minutes, decide a game in a "team" sport.

Horse shit! But reallity.

[Shane]

One more thing. Why am I the only one pissed off to extreme violence, that, if a team loses in OT, the goalie no longer gets credited for the loss? I have mentioned it many times, but I seem to be the Lone Ranger on this one. If you lose, you fucking lose. The "L" in "OTL" stands for LOSS.

[Ishkur]

Originally Posted by Vegas Dave

Well if you don't like the shootout, obviously you don't like NCAAF or CFL overtime either.
I'm not a fan of eliminating special teams and defense from the game.

Oh, I despise CFL overtime. But it's a better fucking idea than sudden death.

The NFL would be perfect if it kept overtime the way it was, EXCEPT--each team must have an equal number of offenses. That means if the team that wins the coin toss gets a couple first downs and kicks a field goal (or punts, or touchdown, or turnover, or whatever they do with the ball), the opposing team MUST be allowed a chance to have their offense take the field and match or better that.

Originally Posted by Vegas Dave

I don't understand why they can't just play 4-on-4 until someone scores.

Best idea ever, and I've been saying this for years. 4-on-4 can't possibly last much longer than 10-15 minutes, due to the excessive physical strain and duress. It's like baseball extra innings--sooner or later one side's bullpen is going to give. I've always advocated at LEAST extending overtime to 10 minutes, preferably to 20. You do that, and watch ties sink like a fucking stone.

[jtg33]

Originally Posted by Point_Man

One more thing. Why am I the only one pissed off to extreme violence, that, if a team loses in OT, the goalie no longer gets credited for the loss? I have mentioned it many times, but I seem to be the Lone Ranger on this one. If you lose, you fucking lose. The "L" in "OTL" stands for LOSS.

No, I'm right with you on this one. It's just plain stupid. If you gave up the winning goal, even in overtime or the shootout, it is because you couldn't stop that last shot that your team lost.

[Shane]

Thanks jtg. That makes TWO against everyone.

[Ishkur]

Quote: