By Bob Trask – As I was watching the Montreal Canadiens secure an overtime victory with another shootout goal by Cole Caufield, I was reminded of the flawed manner in which the NHL hands out points for NHL games. How flawed, you may ask? In my opinion, the league has it exactly backwards.
The current approach encourages careful, maybe even boring play during the last 5 minutes of a tied game. Each team knows they have at least 1 point in the bag if they can retain the status quo during regulation play. That “loser point” can help them in the standings and they still have a shot at the full 2 points in overtime.
Looking at it in another vein, fans are subjected to 3v3 hockey and shootouts to determine winners and losers in a multi-billion dollar sport. It’s almost like 3 different sports wrapped into one event – a hockey game, some 3v3 shinny and a skills competition.
Various proposals have been put forward to remedy the situation and many of them involve handing out 3 points for every game. A win in regulation would result in 3 points for the winner and none for the loser while win in overtime would result in 2 points for the winner 1 for the loser.
For a long time, I thought this was a reasonable compromise. A win in regulation is worth more than an overtime win, as it should be. However, that “loser point” is still lurking in the background. It’s almost like a participation point for playground sports. Yes, it is an improvement but psychologically 1 point is better than none and teams could be tempted to hang on for that point. In other words, this approach still encourages teams to strive for OT. While the incentive is not as blatant as the current situation, it is still there.
One would have to think that the NHL wants to create as much excitement as possible in its games. You would also have to think that the league wants to limit the length of games as much as possible. Overtime and long shootouts impact travel schedules and broadcast schedules alike.
My radical idea is to grant 2 points for a regulation win, 1 point for an OT or shootout win and zero points for a loss. It provides added incentive to win in regulation. Teams would be going all out for that 2 points rather than sitting back an playing for the regulation tie knowing they still have a shot at 2 points while being guaranteed 1 point.
The number of games going to OT or shootouts would be reduced.
In terms of fairness, a team that is good enough to win in regulation deserves to be rewarded. While an OT win still provides them with a point, the extra point for a regulation win is encouragement to get the job done promptly. On the other side of the coin, a team certainly doesn’t want to take the chance of losing in OT and earning zero for their efforts.
This approach uses both a carrot (extra points for a regulation win) and a stick (reduced points for OT games) as incentives.
From a league point of view it would create exciting finishes to games and should potentially bring a quicker result, and that should make everyone happy.
Below are today’s overall standings under the existing format as well as under the revised format. From these results, it is clear that coaches would take a far different, and hopefully more exciting approach to game management.
| Existing | Revised | POS Change | |||
| Team | Pos | Pts | Pos | Pts | |
| Winnipeg | 1 | 54 | 1 | 48 | — |
| NY Rangers | 2 | 54 | 4 | 47 | -2 |
| Boston | 3 | 54 | 6 | 44 | -3 |
| Vancouver | 4 | 53 | 2 | 49 | +2 |
| Colorado | 5 | 53 | 5 | 47 | — |
| Florida | 6 | 52 | 3 | 48 | +3 |
| Vegas | 7 | 51 | 7 | 40 | — |
| Dallas | 8 | 49 | 12 | 37 | -4 |
| Carolina | 9 | 49 | 8 | 40 | +1 |
| Toronto | 10 | 47 | 17 | 34 | -7 |
| Los Angeles | 11 | 46 | 9 | 38 | +2 |
| Philadelphia | 12 | 46 | 18 | 34 | -6 |
| NY Islanders | 13 | 46 | 21 | 32 | -8 |
| Nashville | 14 | 45 | 10 | 38 | +4 |
| New Jersey | 15 | 44 | 11 | 38 | +4 |
| Tampa Bay | 16 | 43 | 15 | 35 | +1 |
| Washington | 17 | 42 | 24 | 30 | -7 |
| Pittsburgh | 18 | 42 | 16 | 35 | +2 |
| Detroit | 19 | 42 | 19 | 33 | — |
| Edmonton | 20 | 41 | 13 | 37 | +7 |
| St Louis | 21 | 41 | 14 | 36 | +7 |
| Seattle | 22 | 40 | 26 | 27 | -4 |
| Arizona | 23 | 39 | 20 | 33 | +3 |
| Calgary | 24 | 39 | 23 | 31 | +1 |
| Montreal | 25 | 39 | 27 | 25 | -2 |
| Minnesota | 26 | 38 | 25 | 28 | +1 |
| Buffalo | 27 | 38 | 22 | 32 | +5 |
| Columbus | 28 | 35 | 29 | 23 | -1 |
| Ottawa | 29 | 28 | 28 | 25 | +4 |
| Anaheim | 30 | 27 | 30 | 22 | — |
| Chicago | 31 | 24 | 31 | 19 | — |
| San Jose | 32 | 21 | 32 | 16 | — |
Yes, there would be some big winner and big losers in this change of format but there were winners and losers when the current format was adopted. And it’s not a matter of who would benefit and who wouldn’t; it’s a matter of equitable allocation of point and the development of a more exciting game. I think this approach achieves both goals.
The reality is that hockey minds at the NHL level will never get high marks for creativity, so whether you like the idea or hate it, don’t hold your breath expecting or dreading change.
