Examining the Cases For and Against the NHL's 'Loser Point'

How did the NHL's point for an overtime loss come to be, and why's it controversial? Jacob Titus explores the history of the rule and the alternatives with help from the THN Archive.

Every year, the same debate around the overtime loss point is re-ignited in the NHL. 

It may be because there’s often at least one team that squeaked into the playoffs because of it – this year’s candidates appear to be the New York Islanders and the Seattle Kraken – or perhaps because it seems too many teams tend to ease off on the gas pedal late during tie games. Should an overtime loss be worth one point?

It’s a debate that has been raging ever since the point was first introduced. A debate so heated that naysayers refer to it as the ‘loser point.’ But how did the point come about, and what potential solutions are there to fix this problem?

The origin of the loser point traces back to the tie game, which was introduced during the 1921-22 NHL season by putting a limit on the number of 10-minute overtime periods to two. But during the Second World War, the NHL eliminated overtime, so if teams were tied at the end of 60 minutes, both teams would be awarded the tie. That rule stayed long after the war.

After the 1981-82 season, the board of governors shot down the idea of bringing back overtime. Of the 840 games played the following season, 127 resulted in a tie.

So when a five-minute five-man overtime was introduced for the 1983-84 season, it was viewed as a long time coming for hockey fans.

The rule saw the overtime-winner would receive two points, as was standard with a regular win. While there was no point granted to overtime losers, some owners argued for the loser point, having ‘earned it’ by playing what was previously considered a full game of hockey. Now, that point was only given if there still wasn’t a winner after the overtime period.

The attention would soon shift to tie-breaking. By the 1998-99 season, 162 of the 222 games that went into overtime ended in a tie. That’s almost 73 percent. This proved Ziegler’s introduction of the five-minute overtime, which former Islanders GM Bill Torrey likened to “15 seconds of sex,” as – figuratively speaking – pointless.

So NHL commissioner Gary Bettman and the board re-packaged overtime for the 1999-00 season, changing it from 5-on-5 to 4-on-4 and introducing the loser point in an effort to boost overtime decisions.

Moving the guaranteed point from the end of the overtime period to the 60-minute mark meant there was now no reason for teams to play conservatively during overtime for the tie, which the league would scrap altogether with the introduction of the shootout in 2005-06. This would effectively render the point useless.

Now, those against the loser point argue this problem has shifted to the end of regulation, as teams seem generally content guaranteeing themselves a point before playing for the extra point instead of risking it for the two points and potentially leaving with nothing if that backfires.

Many possible solutions have been brought up.

For hockey absolutists, there’s the elimination of the loser point altogether. The thinking behind this is if losses are treated equally in the playoffs, why shouldn’t they be treated the same in the regular season? This would effectively quash the need for points since it would just serve as twice the number of wins, so that seems out of the question.

Some argue for the IIHF's point system, which awards three points for regulation wins, two for extra time (overtime or shootout) wins and one for extra time losses. The league explored this option in the mid-2000s but ultimately rejected it.

The biggest issue with this change would be that team points records would shatter. Currently first in the NHL, the New York Rangers are on pace for a 121-point season. Under this potential system, they would be on pace for almost 169 points. That is 26 more than the Bruins had last year, which saw them win almost 80 percent of their games, who would have had 179 points with the same points.

One daring solution would be making the point system a tax against teams trying to push for extra time. This would keep regulation wins at two points, move overtime and shootout wins to one point, and zero points for losses of any nature. This would lead to much more aggressive offensive play during regulation as the teams battle for the two points.

Not all critics share this position, as some still believe teams should be rewarded for the wins and losses in extra time, albeit perhaps to a different degree.

Even though the NHL has looked over many of these options since the introduction of the overtime loss point in 1999, none have come to fruition. In fact, Bettman has remained adamant that ‘loser point’ is here to stay at least until the end of his tenure, whether we like it or not.