Sir_Boagalott Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Expansion does and did water down the talent, that is true. However thats not entirely the problem. Heres why - you have to think of it this way: If the NHL is so waterdown now because of expansion than wouldnt it be even easier for there to be another Gretzky or Lemieux etc because the top players would still be the top players and be made even better because there are that many more shitty players to deke out and dangle around. Yet nobody has every came close to getting 150+ points in a season since then. Expansion only makes the gap between the top players and the average guy larger and that simply isnt the case or there would be more players with 100+ points not less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 8th seed for the West for 06-07 went to Calgary when Colorado won more games. 02-03: Colorado wins the division despite Vancouver winning 3 more games Yeah, this is difficult to say : is it better to win 1 more game in regulation or to lose 3 more in OT ? Who put up the best show, the more efforts in these games? It is like saying the A team was good enough to win more in regulation, but was not able to tie some game to get a point, while team B was not that good to win in regulation but good enough to go get these OT and try for the win but lost a few times more. If you take a look at Calgary - Colorado 06-07, ok Colorado won 1 more, but lost in regulation 2 times more as well... That is why I think the same as Cerebus said. The 3 pts for a regulation win would have been enough to clinch... Rewarding a team with 1 pt for a OT/SO lost is rewarding a good show (at least by the goaler...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 That is why I think the same as Cerebus said. The 3 pts for a regulation win would have been enough to clinch... Rewarding a team with 1 pt for a OT/SO lost is rewarding a good show (at least by the goaler...). I would distinguish between OT and shootout. OT is real hockey, even at 4 on 4, and a loss is a loss and deserves nothing. (A team can put on a good show in regulation and still lose. There should be no points for showmanship!) The shootout, on the other hand, bears little resemblance to hockey, and the losing team deserves at least one point for playing to a tie in real hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I would distinguish between OT and shootout. OT is real hockey, even at 4 on 4, and a loss is a loss and deserves nothing. (A team can put on a good show in regulation and still lose. There should be no points for showmanship!) The shootout, on the other hand, bears little resemblance to hockey, and the losing team deserves at least one point for playing to a tie in real hockey. I've been thinking about it for 5 minutes and I think you might be right. That would do it for me : Regulation win : 3 pts OT win : 3 pts Shoutout win : 2 pts Regulation loss : 0 pt OT loss : 0 pt Shoutot loss : 1 pt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CerebusClone Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I would distinguish between OT and shootout. OT is real hockey, even at 4 on 4, and a loss is a loss and deserves nothing. (A team can put on a good show in regulation and still lose. There should be no points for showmanship!) The shootout, on the other hand, bears little resemblance to hockey, and the losing team deserves at least one point for playing to a tie in real hockey. I would tend to agree, but once again I was trying to think of something that, if submitted to the owners as a proposal, would have a chance to be accepted. If you remove the point for an overtime loss, I think the league would switch back to 5-on-5 overtime. I just think that too many of them don't consider 4-on-4 as real hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mont Royale Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I would tend to agree, but once again I was trying to think of something that, if submitted to the owners as a proposal, would have a chance to be accepted. OK, but I thought that criteria was abandoned once Kozed suggested contracting 6 teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Why not just drop the rosters to 17 players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.