The Three Point Game

The NHL General Managers had their annual March meeting this past week in Boca Raton, Florida where they get together and discuss ways to improve the game.

A lot of topics were discussed like bringing in hybrid icing (It has support from the GM's), bringing back the Red Line (Which thankfully had little support) and eliminating the trapezoid behind the net allowing the goalie to play the puck (A rule I have never understood)

But one topic that the GM's and the NHL fails to bring up on a regular basis is one that drives hockey fans nuts.

The Three Point Game.

As long as I have been a fan of the NHL the standings have been determined by how many points a team has not wins and losses. It use to be that a team would get two points for a win and one for a tie.

When the last wave of expansion started in 1998 the NHL decided to tweak the system feeling most teams were just settling for a tie. They decided to still give one point to both teams if they were tied after 60 minutes and award a second point if a team won the game in overtime.

While the intent was to reward teams for winning it had little impact as teams were still settling for ties.

After the lockout the NHL decided to eliminate tie games and have the winners decided by shootout if two teams were still tied after playing five minutes of overtime.

Teams would each get a point for being tied at the end of regulation and an extra point would be awarded to a team if they won in overtime or a shootout.

While tie games haven't been an issue in the NHL since the lockout teams have managed to take a cautious approach in games. It seems teams are more content with shutting everything down in a close game, hoping it gets to a shootout where they can take their chances to get an extra point in what is nothing more than a glorified skills competition.

So why doesn't the NHL do anything about this? All you have to do is take a look at the current standings.

At first look you'll notice a bunch of teams are close together in points. What you don't realize is that some of those points have come as a result of a team losing in overtime or a shootout.

It's not fair that some games are worth three points in the standings while some are only worth two points.

So what's the solution to this? The obvious one is to determine the standings by wins and losses alone.

However the GM's don't like the idea of having the game go all the way to a shootout only to lose and have nothing to show for it.

With the shootouts not going away and the NHL unwilling to move away from the point system to determine standings I think the best solution is to make every game worth three points.

The way I would do it is a win in regulation or overtime would be three points to the winner and no points to the loser. If the game goes to a shootout each team would get a point with the shootout winner getting the extra point.

By using this method the NHL would actually be rewarding teams for winning games instead of playing for a shootout.

Yes the playoff races wouldn't be as tight as they are now but right now all the playoff races are offering is false hope. Any true hockey fan knows by now whether or not their team has a legit chance to make the playoffs.

If the GM's still have questions about this they can always try it out in the AHL like they do with other potential rule changes before implementing them in the NHL.

I know this rule has been proposed before and each time a variation of this has been turned down but if the NHL really wants to put an emphasis on winning games then this is a rule which needs to be seriously considered.

With three points at stake for a win I think a lot of regular season games would take on more of a playoff like feel.

Something like that can only be good for the NHL as they continue to try and market the game.