With the NHL season coming to a conclusion, there has been a ton of talk about the current tie-breaker when teams in their respective conference finish the regular season with the same amount of points. Talk is that the NHL wants to make regulation wins more valuable than a shootout (or even OT) wins.
Doesn't this say to you that the NHL has finally come to realize that the current point system is horribly flawed? Let’s be real here...points for losing a game (regardless of when it occurs) is a bad idea. Instead of saying that regulation wins are more important, how about making a point system that makes sense.
Here’s my point: Too many three-point games are out there and teams are far too often rewarded for not winning. I would propose a new point system to eliminate this flawed system (I just can't fathom why the NHL decided to reward teams for losing):
Two points for winning in regulation; zero points for losing in regulation.
Two points for winning in (4-on-4) OT; zero points for losing in OT.
One point for winning in the shootout; zero points for losing in the shootout.
The reasoning for the drop in a point for the shootout gives teams some incentive for going for the win in OT to at least get a point for the game, but are not rewarded with two points because the shootout is a non-team based skills competition.
You get nothing for losing, as is was pre-lockout. No more three-point games, no more (potential) 90-plus-point teams missing the playoffs because the team that took the last spot had one more point because they lost more often after regulation.
Mike Buck, Brooklyn, N.Y.