More points won't change a thing
|THIS WEEK'S QUESTION|
|Do you like the proposal to eliminate ties by awarding 3 points for regulation win, 2 for OT or shootout win, and 1 for OT or shootout loss?|
|No||20 (67 percent)|
|Yes||10 (33 percent)|
|Subscribe at thehockeynews.com.|
"I think it could be interesting. They use that in Europe. I don't think they use that exact one, but I think it would be pretty fair. It wouldn't force teams to go to overtime. They would say 'We want to get three points.' It would make it more interesting. A lot of teams, they just go to overtime and go from there. It would be a little different as far as (inflating point totals go), but everybody would be in the same situation."
Atlanta -- Ben Simon: No
"It's awful. The shootout is more exciting, but three points? Why change that? That's not the problem. The problem is the goals. It won't increase scoring."
Boston -- Nick Boynton: Yes
"I think it would be good."
Buffalo -- Jay McKee: Yes
"I'd like to see how it works at the AHL level or something like that first. I think it could have merit, but it still doesn't address that feeling that you got a point for losing."
Calgary -- Jarome Iginla: Yes
"I think it's outstanding. I remember when I watched games, growing up, I didn't like ties. I think the fans would get into a shootout. I also think it would be great to see some of the best goalies and some of the players with the best moves going at it on a regular basis in a shootout. I think it'd be great."
Carolina -- Erik Cole: No
"Three points for a win is not going to change anything. Three points or two points, teams are still going to play the same way."
Chicago -- Jocelyn Thibault: No
"They're just trying to find goofy ways to improve the game. You should get two points for a win and nothing if you lose in overtime. You shouldn't be rewarded for losing."
Colorado -- Anonymous: No
"I don't think so. It's a little too confusing to people, I think."
Columbus -- Anonymous: No
"Too confusing. What's next, four points for a road win by more than two goals?"
Dallas -- Don Sweeney: No
"I think that's messing with the game too much. I actually like it the way it is. The point for a loss in OT does bunch things up a little in the standings, but I think that's actually a good thing. You have some really good races (down the stretch) this year."
Detroit -- Brendan Shanahan: No
Edmonton -- Ryan Smyth: No
"I like it the way that it is."
Florida -- Anonymous: Yes
Los Angeles -- Cristobal Huet: No
"Fine the way it is."
Minnesota -- Jason Wiemer: No
"I don't think ties are as big an issue as the lack of offense or the lack of respect some players have for their brothers. Call me old fashioned, but I like the current system. It's been two points for a win forever."
Montreal -- Jim Dowd: No
"Two points for a win and one for a tie is how it is. Come playoff time, no one complains, and hockey's the best of all sports come playoff time."
Nashville -- David Legwand: No
"That's kind of messing with the history of the game ... If you're going to do it, give no points for an overtime loss."
New Jersey -- Turner Stevenson: No
"I think they should go back to the old system. If you lose in overtime, no point. You get nothing. They should keep the four-on-four. Keep it exciting for the fans. But no points if you lose."
N.Y. Islanders -- Anonymous: No
"I don't like that one, that's not what needs to be changed."
N.Y. Rangers -- Bobby Holik: No
Ottawa -- Daniel Alfredsson: Yes
"I know that it works in European soccer. If you've got the opportunity to get an extra point for the regulation win they're you're really going to try to break the tie game. It's something I would like to see."
Philadelphia -- Patrick Sharp: Yes
"I think it means guys will be going harder in regulation time to get the win."
Phoenix -- Jeff Taffe: No
"Two points for a win is the way it's always been and that's something that should stay the same. If they want to make the goalie pads small fine, but don't mess with the points anymore than they already have."
Pittsburgh -- Mike Eastwood: No
"I think it should be two for a win, one for a tie and nothing for a loss. I'm dead set against giving away a point for losing."
St. Louis -- Anonymous: Yes
San Jose -- Marco Sturm: Yes
Tampa Bay -- Fredrik Modin: No
"I'm not a big fan of changing the game. I don't see why you have to do it. I think it's fine the way it is."
Toronto -- Ron Francis: No
Vancouver -- Henrik Sedin: Yes
"They've had it in Sweden for 5 or 6 years no w and it makes a big difference to win the game instead of going for a tie. I think the shootout is a great idea if no one scores in overtime. It's great for the fans."
Washington -- Josef Boumedienne: No
"I don't like that idea at all. We have it back in Sweden and teams just sit back in overtime waiting for the shootout and if you have a bunch of skill guys good at the shootout or a really good goalie, your team can make the playoffs back home in Sweden just because they win nine or 10 shootouts in a season. So I don't like that idea at all."
Material from The Hockey News.
To subscribe, visit The Hockey News web site at: http://www.thehockeynews.com
MORE NHL HEADLINES
- Ovechkin nets 4 to key Caps to SO victory
- Rangers' Callahan (knee) to miss 4-6 weeks
- Bruins prevail in Iginla's return to Calgary
- Bettman: Players learning how to hit safely