|
|
Post by PantherTom on Jan 22, 2012 22:48:51 GMT
What the league table would look like if we used the old system of 3pts for a win 2pts for OTW and 1pt for OTL which in my opinion is the best system as the current system doesn't penalise the winner for going to OT. Attachments:
|
|
Helen B
Terry Kurtenbach
you know how much I love you guys
Posts: 2,841
|
Post by Helen B on Jan 22, 2012 22:53:34 GMT
What the league table would look like if we used the old system of 3pts for a win 2pts for OTW and 1pt for OTL which in my opinion is the best system as the current system doesn't penalise the winner for going to OT. We've only used that system once as far as I can remember. And there is a tie-break, the table is sorted on Regulation wins before total wins. |
|
|
|
Post by PantherTom on Jan 22, 2012 22:55:54 GMT
What the league table would look like if we used the old system of 3pts for a win 2pts for OTW and 1pt for OTL which in my opinion is the best system as the current system doesn't penalise the winner for going to OT. We've only used that system once as far as I can remember. And there is a tie-break, the table is sorted on Regulation wins before total wins. Yeah but don't you think it makes more sense though stops teams not pushing for regulation wins.. Eg when panthers lost to sheff in OT before Xmas both teams were content to take a point each |
|
|
|
Post by robbo2306 on Jan 22, 2012 23:02:06 GMT
What the league table would look like if we used the old system of 3pts for a win 2pts for OTW and 1pt for OTL which in my opinion is the best system as the current system doesn't penalise the winner for going to OT. TBH I can't seem much difference in that table. You and Belfast are more points in front but then there are more points available to be won. If we were to win those games in hand then the result would be pretty much the same as it is now. |
|
|
|
Post by PantherTom on Jan 23, 2012 0:40:21 GMT
What the league table would look like if we used the old system of 3pts for a win 2pts for OTW and 1pt for OTL which in my opinion is the best system as the current system doesn't penalise the winner for going to OT. TBH I can't seem much difference in that table. You and Belfast are more points in front but then there are more points available to be won. If we were to win those games in hand then the result would be pretty much the same as it is now. Not really at the moment you only need to win 2 in regulation the other table shows eitherv3 in regulation or the more likely with you guys 4 OT wins.. I'm not just talking about us and Sheffield I think it is a better system anyway |
|
yeti
Robert Lachowicz
Posts: 420
|
Post by yeti on Jan 23, 2012 10:47:22 GMT
What about if you used the traditional old way of doing it. Where you have no overtime and 1 point for a draw and 2 points for a win. Although overtime/penalties can be exciting I think that a draw is the fair result when neither team has done enough to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Jan 23, 2012 10:51:45 GMT
Now that would be interesting Yeti and force clubs that need the points to chase the game rather than settle for o/t and penalties. I was under the impression the "win" was brought in to be more like the US style of results. Personally i dont think the current system is the best of any worlds, we neither can have draws or we dont know what the total points will be at the end of the season.
If there was only 2 points available then we know exactly what points will be available at the end of the season and if it went to the 3 points then again we know exactly what points are available ie o/t win and loss = 2 +1 or regular time win = 3.
Shame we cant decide on one or the other in this country...
|
|
|
|
Post by spik on Jan 23, 2012 12:40:38 GMT
What about if you used the traditional old way of doing it. Where you have no overtime and 1 point for a draw and 2 points for a win. Although overtime/penalties can be exciting I think that a draw is the fair result when neither team has done enough to win. I like this idea.A draw ia a draw. Whilst the 3,2,1pt system did not show much difference in the one year we did it.It might make some difference to a few and then be argued that it doesn't harm trying it anyway. It's the usual stuff though.Excitement over 60 minutes like tex says.But also as he says it will push teams into trying to win. |
|
yeti
Robert Lachowicz
Posts: 420
|
Post by yeti on Jan 23, 2012 12:43:53 GMT
Agree with you Tex.
They did try 3 points for regulation win, 2 for overtime win and 1 for overtime loss for one season in the superleague. They decided after one season that it looked like to much of a points gap if a team won the league by 3 regulation wins (9 points). But this is only the same as footie and no has a problem with it.
If you have the chance of getting 3 points for a regulation win and only 2 for an overtime win then it should make teams try harder in the last few minutes of regulation to get the win. Especailly if they need the points. Instead of sitting back waiting for overtime being happy to get the one point first and then try to get the extra one in overtime.
|
|
Shorty
Paul Adey
Still here for Private Messages
Posts: 6,636
|
Post by Shorty on Jan 23, 2012 12:47:22 GMT
They might change it yet this season depending on how the table is looking towards the end of the season!
|
|
|
|
Post by pacey11 on Jan 23, 2012 14:30:58 GMT
Doesn't the Continental Cup (and the IIHF World Championships) use the 3pts/2pts/1pt system? So it wouldn't be a big leap to move to that - just makes us more of a Euro league than NA.
I'm not a fan of the old 1pt for a draw system - after 60/65mintues of action where guys put their bodies on the line, saying "no-one won" seems like a bit of a let down.
|
|
|
|
Post by GuinnessMan on Jan 23, 2012 14:40:06 GMT
... and similarly you could still have teams 'settling' for the 1 point. A 3pt regulation win, would make you think again.
|
|
|
|
Post by robbo2306 on Jan 23, 2012 15:34:00 GMT
Must admit to actually preferring the 3 points for a win scenario. Make teams go after the regulation win more often.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Viking on Jan 23, 2012 15:53:10 GMT
What about if you used the traditional old way of doing it. Where you have no overtime and 1 point for a draw and 2 points for a win. It'd look like this: | Belfast | 58 | | Nottingham | 54 | | Sheffield | 46 | | Cardiff | 45 | | Coventry | 41 | | Braehead | 39 | | Edinburgh | 22 | | Hull | 22 | | Dundee | 16 | | Fife | 13 |
|
|
NP
Lorne Smith
Posts: 706
|
Post by NP on Jan 23, 2012 18:03:41 GMT
It's all the sports from or in North America where they don't like to see drawn games, & overtime is used to settle league games. The U.S. even managed firstly to get their major soccer league teams to play overtime in league games, but this was stopped after a few seasons..
From being from more of a football background myself I don't understand the need for a positive result in a league game.
Uk invented sports such as cricket, you can play for 5 days without a result. Football, Rugby, hockey etc.. a draws & draw. You even used to get unlimited cup replays in football.
3pts for regulation win, 2pts in overtime does seem the fairer way to go with overtime being played, or if no overtime then 3pts for a win, 1 for a draw a la football.
|
|
|
|
Post by pantherdman on Jan 23, 2012 18:58:43 GMT
Why don't we use this system?? oh yes, it's too sensible.
|
|
rusty
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 31
|
Post by rusty on Jan 24, 2012 8:50:09 GMT
At least with the no overtime scenario, there wouldn't be that silly situation in league/cup double up games of whether to risk winning or going out of the cup etc. Although no doubt there would be different connotations some folk could come up with.
|
|
