So, I just checked out the standings in the NHL, and I can't help but notice the flawed overtime-loss-gets-a-point system that is in place. Here's an example:
In the Western Pacific Division, the LA Kings are 23-15 with 10 overtime losses (really a 23-25 LOSING record). They are sitting at 2nd in their division with 56 points and 7th in the conference (in playoff contention). Meanwhile, sitting at 3rd in the same division behind the Kings are the Dallas Stars sitting with a 24-20 and 2 overtime loss record (really a 24-22 WINNING record) which equates to 50 points, 6 points behind the Kings and out of playoff contention at where they stand now. How does a team with a winning record in the SAME division get seated behind the team with the losing record? Does anyone else find this system flawed? Granted, the Kings have played 2 more games, however, even if the Stars were to win the next 2 games they play, and the Kings don't play any in that time, they'd still be ahead by 2 points and an there would be even a bigger discrepancy in both of their records and who should really be ahead of who.
Furthermore, with this everyone-gets-a-point-after-the-third-period system is ridiculous. What's to stop teams from negotiating to stay tied through regulation and really play into overtime? That way, they'd both get a point and would be able to grab a point and play for the extra point in shootout and overtime. Although this scenario may seem far-fetched, it is very much able to be done with the current system.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this? I've played hockey (roller and ice) since I can remember, and the way the league is handling these wins and losses makes me not interested in following the sport at all really. Discuss?
A quick word on blocking ads
It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
