Another Change Considered.

External Since: Sep 07, 2003 Posts: 5

They are also thinking of awarding:
3 points for a win,
2 points for an OT win,
1 point for a tie.

They are going to probably implement it in the AHL next season to try it
out.
I think this is absolutely fantastic!!! Play for the win baby. Open up
the run and gun and take some chances, no more playing for ties or "not
to lose". This has been an overwhelming success since FIFA adopted it
for soccer in the early 80's.

Think of it this way.
Two teams, both have .500 records.
Team A: Very conservative, boring, play the trap and tie all 82 games!
(work with me, it's hypothetical). End the season with 82 points.

Team B: Verrry open, run and gun, caution to the wind, win 41 games,
lose 41 games. They end up with..... 123 POINTS.

Team B just kicked the CRAP out of a team that they would have been tied
with in the "old" system because they did not play "not to lose". Which
is what most teams are doing right now.

Clinton < or am I wrong?

External Since: Jul 02, 2003 Posts: 10

Wouldn't this be more pure if they just stopped awarding points for a loss?

--
Jay

"Clinton Tindall" <ctindall.TakeThisOut@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:40299545.36DC1041@telusplanet.net...
> They are also thinking of awarding:
> 3 points for a win,
> 2 points for an OT win,
> 1 point for a tie.
>
> They are going to probably implement it in the AHL next season to try it
> out.
> I think this is absolutely fantastic!!! Play for the win baby. Open up
> the run and gun and take some chances, no more playing for ties or "not
> to lose". This has been an overwhelming success since FIFA adopted it
> for soccer in the early 80's.
>
> Think of it this way.
> Two teams, both have .500 records.
> Team A: Very conservative, boring, play the trap and tie all 82 games!
> (work with me, it's hypothetical). End the season with 82 points.
>
> Team B: Verrry open, run and gun, caution to the wind, win 41 games,
> lose 41 games. They end up with..... 123 POINTS.
>
> Team B just kicked the CRAP out of a team that they would have been tied
> with in the "old" system because they did not play "not to lose". Which
> is what most teams are doing right now.
>
> Clinton < or am I wrong?
>