Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

3 Points for a Regulation/OT win
2 Points for a Shootout win
1 Point for a Shootout loss
0 Points for an Regulation/OT Loss


Here is the release:
http://www.ccha.com/sports/m-hockey/spe ... 09aaa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


5 more days til the puck drops, Go Falcons!

There are things that make less sense than this new system... but not many.

It's strange that you get more points for an overtime win than a shootout win, and one point for a shootout loss but not an overtime loss. Maybe they're trying to handicap the shootout because everyone knows it's a terrible way to decide a game.

In the NHL if you lose in overtime or in a shootout you pick up one point, and if you win in OT, regulation or in the shootout you pick up two points. That seems to make a little more sense.

Getting more points in OT than a SO makes complete sense to me. If you finish the job up properly, you should be rewarded. A Shoot-Out, while I like them, would be the equivalent of having to kickers start at the 30 and move back 5 yards after each make, until one of them missed. You think you should get as many points for that as you do if you beat a team in regulation, when there are more than 2 players involved at a time? I like the new points system and I wish the NHL would implement something like that!

VDub26Falcon wrote:Getting more points in OT than a SO makes complete sense to me. If you finish the job up properly, you should be rewarded. A Shoot-Out, while I like them, would be the equivalent of having to kickers start at the 30 and move back 5 yards after each make, until one of them missed. You think you should get as many points for that as you do if you beat a team in regulation, when there are more than 2 players involved at a time? I like the new points system and I wish the NHL would implement something like that!

I guess that does sorta make sense. Like you and I said, they're probably doing it because they know that shootouts aren't a great way to decide a game.

I just don't think that a team that loses in overtime should get 0 points. Then again, if they gave a team a point for an OT loss they'd only be able to give the winner of that game 2 points and not the 3 that they now get, or else you'd have a game that's worth 4 points.

This makes sense. Giving one point for a shoot out loss would essentially be the same as giving one point for a tie --like they used to do before shootouts.

In other words, if you are tied after regulation and overtime, you get a point. If you win the shootout lottery, you get an extra point.

Lord_Byron wrote:This makes sense. Giving one point for a shoot out loss would essentially be the same as giving one point for a tie --like they used to do before shootouts.

Yeah the article mentions that in the national rankings and RPI that being in a shootout, no matter a win or lose in it, will be looked at as a tie in those rankings.

I still hate shootouts and fail to understand what is wrong with ending a game in a tie. At least this system recognizes that a shootout win isn't a "real" win and should motivate teams to keep the tempo up at the end of a close game or in overtime.

rood wrote:I still hate shootouts and fail to understand what is wrong with ending a game in a tie. At least this system recognizes that a shootout win isn't a "real" win and should motivate teams to keep the tempo up at the end of a close game or in overtime.

I could not agree more. Hockey rolled along fine for 100 years with tie games and we seemed to survive. The NHL added the shootout to try to draw fans in such hockey hotbeds as Nashville, Atlanta and Miami. It doesn't mean that hockey diehards in the CCHA have to put up with it. But, that's just my opinion.

Shootouts are for the fans... nothing more. And I like the new scoring system. Is does place more importance on the weekend series than ever before. It should be interesting to see how the changes play out.

Oddly enough the new points system would not have made much difference last season in the final standings. Ferris would have finished ahead of UNO and had home ice in the first round and we would have finished ahead of MSU and lost to Northern instead of losing to OSU. Psychologically it may have affected how teams played in OT and thereby changed the standings significantly as some teams would drive harder to get the full 3 point win or take stupid chances that cost you the game. But just based on last years outcomes, not much difference.

I worked out all the standings but left my notes in the office and I don't want to do it again. I can post the full comparison tomorrow if anybody cares.

So if....wait, no, then if......ummm, what if.....