Hockey Awesome Poll Fun Poll

[Guest Czech please!]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/stor...&id=3962804

 

The general managers are meeting to discuss things. Some of them want to get rid of fighting. I bet the Red Wings do, because the Red Wings are a bunch of fairy Swedes.

 

They also want to putz around with points for wins and points for kinda-wins and on and on. I'd rather they didn't.

 

Detroit GM Ken Holland has proposed an adjustment to the tiebreaker system. Holland would like to see the first tiebreaker go from games won to regulation games won. The logic is simple: Reward the teams that win games outright during the regular season, as opposed to winning in overtime or a shootout, when the opposing team also gains a point.

 

Some GMs favor a move to a three-point system wherein a regulation win is worth three points and an overtime or shootout win worth two points, with the team losing in extra time still gaining a single point. That will never fly, given its chilly reception in the past, but Holland's suggestion has significant merit and is a nod to rewarding teams that get the job done in regulation. In terms of impact, such a rule change should induce coaches to go for regulation victories as opposed to sitting back late in a tie game hoping to secure at least a point. Holland also suggested making the second tiebreaker the most wins in regulation and overtime.

Ken Holland is also the hockey genius behind not mandating injury disclosure, so we have to go through this ridiculous "he has a lower body injury" shit when obviously the guy sprained his ankle.

[treble 0]

I don't think the standings are confusing now. I can see why people could want just wins and losses, but hockey's never had that. I also don't mind having regulation wins as a tie-breaker, but they don't need to put that in the standings anywhere.

[bob_barron 0]

I thought the Wings were Russian.

 

Fighting should absolutely remain in hockey. It's part of the game, and it allows the players to police themselves and to keep things from getting too out of hand. A guy slipping and hitting his head on the ice shouldn't ruin it for anyone.

 

Anyone who thinks the standings are too confusing now is a retard. 2 for win, 1 for overtime loss, 0 for regulation loss. Not that hard.

 

I think they should get rid of the shootout and go back to ties, but everytime I say that, we get pages and pages of arguments.

[Guest]

The supposed staged fight is something I don't care about. Can do with or without. They're also talking about giving out instigators for fights after a hit. I sure would hate to see that one. How does a ban on fighting benefit the league? Are more people going to show up? If your reasoning for not watching hockey is because players fight, well, you're a fruitcake and we don't want you in the building anyway.

 

Standings now are pretty shitty. Keep them as they are.

[bob_barron 0]

I know Bettman hates to admit it, but the fans like fighting. Why would you outlaw the one thing that everyone loves?

 

Players agreeing before the game to fight just so they can fight is stupid. The instigator rule should be abolished.

[Guest Czech please!]

I hate these stupid "we need to change the momentum" fights or "the game is boring, let's get the fans in it" fights. I just like seeing violent retribution for hurting our little scoring guys, and if that means dropping the gloves and punching a guy in the face, so be it. The Hawks got sufficient non-fighting retribution against Dan Cleary. Besides, the peak years for scoring were the peak years for fighting, weren't they? Those were good years. I don't want European-style hockey where everything is enforced and everyone is flopping to draw penalties. We're too far into that as it is; thanks a lot Detroit.

 

I hate the overtime loss/shootout loss. All wins should count the same, which they don't right now, since you only gain half the ground against a conference foe if you beat them in overtime. You won. They lost. Doesn't matter when. Get rid of the third column in all its forms.

 

 

[bob_barron 0]

I hate the overtime loss/shootout loss. All wins should count the same, which they don't right now, since you only gain half the ground against a conference foe if you beat them in overtime. You won. They lost. Doesn't matter when. Get rid of the third column in all its forms.

 

As I've said before, the reason they added the overtime point, was because overtime was basically 5 minutes of teams too afraid to do anything and sitting back and playing for the tie.

 

I don't have a problem with the OTL, since it makes it more exciting with the teams being 4-4 and going all out.

 

Not getting a point because you lost in a shootout would be absurd since shootouts aren't real hockey anyway.

 

We're too far into that as it is; thanks a lot Detroit.

 

When did Czech start hating the Wings? They're the team that was in my favourite hockey fight of all time- when they went after Lemieux.

[Guest Czech please!]

I have never liked the Red Wings. Why would I have?

 

I don't understand why hockey teams should be rewarded for almost winning when football, basketball, and baseball teams are most certainly not. I think it's because hockey doesn't have the word "ball" in its name, so the same sporting principles don't apply.

[bob_barron 0]

I don't understand why hockey teams should be rewarded for almost winning when football, basketball, and baseball teams are most certainly not. I think it's because hockey doesn't have the word "ball" in its name, so the same sporting principles don't apply.

 

football, basketball and baseball don't use points or change the rules for overtime. They also didn't have ties that caused a situation where people just played for ties

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

Czech, just curious... How long have you been a hockey fan?

[Guest Czech please!]

Well, hockey should be more like the other three, and stop using points and changing the rules. Push the shootout back to after 10 minutes of overtime so that it's rarer, and just have wins and losses. This will never happen, because the Canadian collective consciousness doesn't seem to have this all-or-nothing mentality, so the best we can do is hope that things don't become even more contrived with three points for wins, two points for shootout losses, one point for overtime losses, one and a half points for overtime losses in provinces whose names start with a vowel, 1.25 points in American states to adjust for the value of the dollar, on and on and on.

[bob_barron 0]

Czech, stop being stupid.

 

What makes hockey great is that it's unique, it should absolutely not be like the other sports. That's what fucked Bettman over in the first place.

 

Push the shootout back to after 10 minutes of overtime so that it's rarer, and just have wins and losses.

 

If you're advocating for straight wins and losses, then you shouldn't get 0 points for losing on cheap penalty kicks

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

I voted against fighting but it should have been more specific. I hate staged fights. If it's in the heat of the moment, then it's okay.

 

I wish hockey had percentage standings, then we might know actually cliched a playoff spot now. There are shoot outs now so games don't end in ties. Don't give three points for regulation wins cause that just sounds stupid.

[Guest Czech please!]

Yeah, using percentage points is just fine. There are plenty of ways that the NHL is unique, and those things make the NHL great. Power plays and penalty kills are unique, stopping the entire game to have a fight is unique, all these things are unique, and other sports have things that make them unique and great too, like the one-on-one nature of baseball, or the ability to singlehandedly commandeer a game in the NBA. All of these things are built on the universal idea of either winning or losing a game, though. Half-wins are unique, but not to be treasured.

 

"Aw, dad, we lost!"

"Son, where I come from, we call that a half-win."

[Lt. Al Giardello 0]

You still haven't answered my question Czech...

[bob_barron 0]

I just wish they would being back ties.

 

UndertakerHart is right, it IS hard to figure out clinching playoff berths. I've been trying to figure out for the Leafs and Nucks for a wihle, and it's hard.

 

"Aw, dad, we lost!"

"Son, where I come from, we call that a half-win."

 

Nobody calls it that.

[Guest Czech please!]

I don't see how it's germane to the argument, but okay. I committed to the Indian in 1994 and lapsed in 1996, when I got into wrestling and stopped following hockey, which became hard to do because I moved and no longer had SportsChannel on my cable. I renewed my commitment toward the end of the 01-02 season for the Steve Sullivan-fueled playoff run, and then sat through two awful years of fake prospects and tired has-beens and it was so soul-crushing that I rooted for the Senators in the 2003 playoffs just so I had a reason to care about the sport that broke my spirit so. Then hockey stopped, then it came back and the Hawks were still bad, then Bill Wirtz died and they got good. I knwo I'm not from the greater Calgary-Toronto-Montreal area like you, but I think I still have juuuust enough hockey cred to start a thread about it.

 

They ought to call it a half-win, that is what it is. If a win is worth 2 points, what is 1 point?

[bob_barron 0]

I was gonna say, EHME's question had nothing to do with the subject at hand, no need to keep pressing it.

 

that I rooted for the Senators in the 2003 playoffs

 

The third period of Game 7 still makes me laugh. Yes, I'm bitter.

[Zetterberg is God 0]

I think fighting for policing purposes has its place so I say keep it. I am not a fan of the pity point so they should drop it. Keep the shootouts but only award the winner the points.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I think part of my issue with the standings is that there's no real insight into what a good team is. Most sports consider finishing above .500 good, right? Just in terms of wins vs. losses...

 

2006: 21 teams finished above .500

2007: 22 teams finished above .500

 

90+ points used to be for great teams but now, with the shootouts included, it seems like many teams can get 80 as a minimum. There's no real number to look at as a fan and go, "That's the benchmark to reach points wise."

 

Is 100 the benchmark? In 2006, 11 teams finished over 100 points. In 2007, there were only 5 teams with a handful of others right at 99, 98, or 97. There's already 3 teams at 95 points this season with roughly 15+ games to go in the season.

 

In all other sports, you generally have an idea of what it takes for a team to reach their playoffs. In the NFL it's winning at least 10 games, in MLB it's getting around the 90-92 win mark, and in the NBA it's winning around 50 games.

[Guest Czech please!]

Yeah, it all becomes quite meaningless and only serves to further alienate the game from casual observers. I know "don't make us the NBA!" has been our rallying cry, but you should be able to eyeball the standings and know who's where. Those pre-lockout days of trying to figure out if 37-25-12-8 meant a team was playoff-bound were the pits. Am I following a team or memorizing my locker combination?

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Keep 'em both as is. No case I can make for either hasn't been used already.

[bob_barron 0]

From Yahoo!-

 

Burke got a victory of his own on Wednesday, as one of his many proposals was finally passed by general managers who agreed that TV timeouts should be allowed after an icing penalty.

 

I don't know if I like that. How does that punish the iced team?

[Guest Czech please!]

It's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of keeping the game flowing for viewers. TVTOs are the first stoppages after 6/10/14 excluding icing and goals, so it basically takes offsides, penalties, and smothered pucks to go to commercial. If they don't hit all their mandatory ad breaks on time, they get compressed into the last few minutes and they end up, for example, having to take ad breaks at the first and second stoppages after 14, which could be mere seconds between 2-minute ad breaks. That's happened in a few games I've watched and it was irritating. I don't mind this change.

[Red Baron 0]

Fighting should stay in hockey. It's been going on before the NHL and does build up momentum for the team to claw back or play harder. Fans like it too because they see their tough guy trying to layout the opposing player in front of them.

 

I, like Bob, love ties. Honestly there was nothing wrong with a tie. However I'd have a ten minute 4-4 OT, no shootout. Tie game, tie game. No points for losing in OT. However, in regular season hockey, I'd like to see them play with no blue line for OT. See if we have those Russians loaf in the attack zone. It should, in theory create the game more exciting and more of a risk, reward type deal.

 

Edit:

 

I also like to see goalies have room to skate. Get rid of the fucking trapezoid and if the goalie is out of his crease, he's fair game.

[bob_barron 0]

It's not a matter of punishment, it's a matter of keeping the game flowing for viewers. TVTOs are the first stoppages after 6/10/14 excluding icing and goals, so it basically takes offsides, penalties, and smothered pucks to go to commercial. If they don't hit all their mandatory ad breaks on time, they get compressed into the last few minutes and they end up, for example, having to take ad breaks at the first and second stoppages after 14, which could be mere seconds between 2-minute ad breaks. That's happened in a few games I've watched and it was irritating. I don't mind this change.

 

But on icing, you can't change lines, so the point is that you're stuck out with your line for icing the puck. Having a TV Timeout kind of kills that.

[Guest Czech please!]

So should they allow line changes on TV timeouts irrespective of what the stoppage is? You have to make concessions to the broadcasters here.

[Zetterberg is God 0]

That's a tough one. I agree with Bob that teams that ice the puck shouldn't get a break because of a TV timeout but like you said Czech you have to keep the broadcasters happy.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

From Yahoo!-

 

Burke got a victory of his own on Wednesday, as one of his many proposals was finally passed by general managers who agreed that TV timeouts should be allowed after an icing penalty.

 

I don't know if I like that. How does that punish the iced team?

 

I don't like it either. I thought the deferred timeout was a great rule. I suppose, ultimately, TV's going to not let it slide, so Czech's point probably supersedes, but I do like the idea of the icing team not getting to rest or change lines.

 

I also like to see goalies have room to skate. Get rid of the fucking trapezoid and if the goalie is out of his crease, he's fair game.

 

In principle, YES. In practise, it's going to lead to more fights, either spontaneous or planned. We can't have that, can we? Groan.

 

While we're having our own TSM GM Meetings...am I the only one who hates the DoG penalty for puck into the stands?

[LaParkaMarka 0]

I want them to get rid of that 3rd/4th column as well. If some team decides to sit back in OT and play for the shootout, that's fine...teams do that already.