A quick rant

It's as if they were reading my mind.

Yesterday both Gregg Drinnan and Alan Caldwell (links to the left) addressed the issue of the way points are awarded for wins and losses in hockey. The timing on that is impeccable, since I was planning on posting a rant on that very subject today. The idea they discuss is a points format proposed by hockey fan Bill Motiuk. You can check Gregg's blog for the full details of Motiuk's formula.

Anyway, I thought I'd summarize my own thoughts on the subject. Ever since I began covering hockey there was one thing that really bothered me. Why is a game that is decided in regulation worth two total points while a game that is decided in overtime or a shootout worth three? Essentially what's happening is that games that end in a tie in regulation are worth 50-percent more than games that are won outright. How much sense does that make? As I understand it, the original intent for awarding a point to a team that loses in overtime was to encourage teams to go for the win in overtime rather than play conservatively to ensure a tie point. But in doing that haven't the powers that be just encouraged teams to play for the tie in regulation? It seems to me that the best strategy for coaches to employ is to agree beforehand to play to a regulation tie, then start playing for real in OT, thereby maximizing the points available from the game. I don't think anyone wants that.

I'm not sure that Motiuk's solution is the answer, as it again changes the overall value of each game depending at which stage the game is won. However, I do think that if there's going to continue to points awarded for OT/shootout losses, a regulation win needs to be worth more than just two points. I think that needs to be the starting point for any discussion, and I think that discussion needs to take place.