No one gets a point for losing during team play.
2 points for a win, 1 point only if you lose in the shootout.
I am always surprised that so few people like shootouts. I love them. Only one game that I attended went to a shootout and it was exciting to see. On TV I love the long shootouts where they're running out of players. Love seeing both the individual skills of the shooter and the goalie's skills. Doesn't everyone like seeing penalty shots too?
- ktsparks

One change I would love the league to impliment is allowing the team the choice to get the man advantage or get a penalty shot.

No, I want 5on5 if its more than 5min.
3 points for a regulation win
2 for an over time win
1 for an over time loss

- Tom Dusome

Yep, you should not get all the possible standings points for tying a game then winning some 3-on-3 or shootout play. Use the above system.

This puts pressure on teams to win in regulation which is really what we're after.

Not no but Hell No!
Stop with the gimmicks. Give 3 points for a win. 1 point for a tie and no points for a loss.
What other sport changes the whole dynamics of the game to get a win. 3v3 is not hockey plain and simple.

Not no but Hell No!
Stop with the gimmicks. Give 3 points for a win. 1 point for a tie and no points for a loss.
What other sport changes the whole dynamics of the game to get a win. 3v3 is not hockey plain and simple.
- nyisles7

Nobody wants a game to end in a tie.

Nobody wants a game to end in a tie.
- BINGO!

If both teams play well and at the end of regulation time the game is tied. I have no problem with that outcome. (So there goes your “nobody”) For me it makes much more sense then giving the loser a point and or changing the whole strategy of the game just to have a winner.

If both teams play well and at the end of regulation time the game is tied. I have no problem with that outcome. (So there goes your “nobody”) For me it makes much more sense then giving the loser a point and or changing the whole strategy of the game just to have a winner.
- nyisles7

It's still nobody.

Nobody wants a game to end in a tie.
- BINGO!

Nobody should want a team to get a point for losing.

Ties were fine from 1917 to 2004-2005 and the NHL survived.

Nobody wants a game to end in a tie.
- BINGO!

With a single 20 minute 3-on-3 system you'd only have about ~1 game in the entire league per year actually go scoreless that long.

Then, pick your poison. That game can end in a tie, NFL style, or you can end it in a shootout. Either way you make both outcomes extremely rare or impossible, without requiring endless regular season OT.

I’ll vote for it. So 1 point each for a tie?

Nobody should want a team to get a point for losing.

Ties were fine from 1917 to 2004-2005 and the NHL survived.
- Cush29

It's not the "loser point" that's the problem. The problem is forcing 2 points on a team after a tie. Winning a 3v3 or shootout shouldn't have the same value as a regulation win.

It's not the "loser point" that's the problem. The problem is forcing 2 points on a team after a tie. Winning a 3v3 or shootout shouldn't have the same value as a regulation win.
- Blue Clam

I actually think both things are true / problems.

If you lose you shouldn't get any points IMO (even if that loss is due to gimicky all star game deciding factor like 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 OT or a shootout). Make the game exciting all the way through vs teams just 'playing for a point' and then hoping they can win the skills competition.

You are right the value of a regulation win should be the highest points awarded and not the same as a team who wins in OT or a shootout.

I would still be fine with no overtime, no shootout and just a 2 points for a win, 1 point each for a tie and 0 points for losing but the NHL will never go back there sadly. Never will we see a 0-0 double shut out again which is a shame (he says as a goalie). lol

I actually think both things are true / problems.

If you lose you shouldn't get any points IMO (even if that loss is due to gimicky all star game deciding factor like 4 on 4 or 3 on 3 OT or a shootout). Make the game exciting all the way through vs teams just 'playing for a point' and then hoping they can win the skills competition.

You are right the value of a regulation win should be the highest points awarded and not the same as a team who wins in OT or a shootout.

I would still be fine with no overtime, no shootout and just a 2 points for a win, 1 point each for a tie and 0 points for losing but the NHL will never go back there sadly. Never will we see a 0-0 double shut out again which is a shame (he says as a goalie). lol
- Cush29

Agreed. Ties make sense, but there's an obsession with forcing a winner. Ties are definitely a tough way to lose a bet, but that shouldn't influence the rules.

The problem is that there are a lot of goals that are mutually in conflict with one another, so the best “compromise” sort of depends on what you think is most important.

Some of the basic things you want to achieve:

- Fairness
- Excitement
- Elimination of perverse incentives (e.g., the incentive to play for OT and guarantee a point, or opportunities for teams to collude for mutual benefit in order to eliminate a third party)
- Standings simplicity
- All games either worth the same amount of points, or extra points incentivize desired outcomes (e.g., soccer-style 3 for a win, 1 for tie, 0 for loss) rather than undesired outcomes (e.g., how the current NHL system incentivizes playing for overtime)
- Game length predictability

Some of these goals have an oppositional relationship. For example, the fairest system would either be one that produces a lot of ties, or has unlimited 5-on-5 OT. But ties are less exciting and can sometimes create perverse incentives. And unlimited 5-on-5 OT in the regular season disrupts TV schedules, fan schedules, team travel, increases injury risk, etc.

Let’s also consider the 3-2-1 points system. I agree that 3-on-3 and shootouts are more gimmicky and less “fair” than 5-on-5 OT. And a 3-2-1 system that assigns 50% more value to a regulation win is arguably “fairer,” or at least less likely to be a product of random chance, than the current system. It also makes 82-game standings annoyingly complicated and unintuitive to read, and arguably can actually feel less fair. Quick quiz, which of these records is the best one and which is the worst?

RW - OTW - OTL - RL
44-10-8-20
41-15-8-18
47-6-7-22

Time’s up, the middle record is the best under the 3-2-1 system at 161 points. The first and last are both tied at 160. But who would be able to tell that at a glance, without having the number of points fed to them? And would that feel "right"?

Maybe you don’t care about the standings being ridiculous to read as long as it’s “fair.” But I think most sports fans would greatly prefer things looking like this:

54-28
56-26
53-29

Get rid of ties and count all wins and losses the same and you don’t even need to use points anymore. Just pure baseball-style wins, losses, and games back. Arguably less fair. Definitely more exciting and digestible.

So, I mean, there’s no perfect solution. Pick what matters to you the most and compromise.

- IIHF 3 point system, but maintain that regulation wins is the first tiebreaker
- 7 mins of 3 on 3
- first time you pass or skate the puck back over the red line is a faceoff at center, any other time is a minor penalty. For the sake of objectivity I think you need established exceptions such as a shot that goes towards the other net and rings all the way around is always ok, and if the puck hits an opponent and goes back over its ok (even if it was clearly a deliberate method to get the puck back over center; this can't have any subjectivity in it or it'll be a nightmare)
- shootout is 5 skaters each

Though honestly, I don't really care what they do with it, given the trajectory that percent of OT games that go to shootout seems to be on. As long as they never, ever, ever, ever put 3 on 3 or SO into playoff OT, it's fine.