agree with you 100 percent on the 3 point regulation win the believe the arguments against were

1) it would destroy historical records teams would be ending the year in the 140 – 150 points

- now that every game ends with 2 points handed out the records really don’t mean anything anyway the fact the gave Brodeur the most wins in a season record is a joke he wouldn’t have came close without his shootout wins

2) it would be too confusing to read a four column win loss record W/L/OTW/OTL

- hockey fans are not morons and can count I think most hockey fans would be for it but the shootout is not really for hockey fans and hockey purist aren’t very found of it

3) parity is paramount the NHL wanted every team to be in the playoff race and didn’t want too many teams to get far out ahead the pack

- another gimmick to boost popularity and help the bad teams by making winning less important to give false hope to lesser franchises wild-card in Baseball and Football, restrictor plates in NASCAR worked to grow those sports so this in the NHL equivalent

Yeah, I really don’t care how they show standings. I’ve been following hockey long enough to understand things. And, frankly, I believe hockey lives and dies by it’s hardcore fans. I just strongly feel if you’re going to reward a team for losing in overtime/shootout, a team that wins in 60 should be rewarded.

For me, the dream scenario would be do it soccer style. 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 for a loss.

Recognized world wide, and used universally for all other international sports and competition as the best was to score wins losses and ties.
3 points for a win
2 points for a win in OT
1 point for making it into OT
0 points regulation loss

Logic behind the system
If you complete the objective in the amount of time alloted you get all the points
Win in regulation =3 pts

Complete the objective but not on time; you get some of the points but not all
OT win/so win= 2 pts
(shootout and ot serve the exact same purpose. Making a winner in regular season games)

You successfully keep your opponent from achieving their goal in the time alloted but fail to achieve yours is worth something, but not much.
Regulation tie =1pt

You fail to achieve your goal, and you fail to prevent your opponent from successfully achieving theirs is worth nothing.

I hate snow.

I am also against the 4 on 4 OT I think it is really minor league gimmick that cheapens the game. I know it is exciting but it just isn’t right to artifically reduce the number of players on the ice for an OT period. I am also on favor of going back to a 10 min OT and I have always been in favor of a 5 man shootout 3 is too small and doesn’t make sense you play with 5 guys and a goalie you should have 5 shots in the shootout. The current OT and SO rules favor the least deep teams and the teams with best individual superstar players not the best teams overall.

I stick by my earlier post, which DragonGirl linked earlier. WLTOP. Win, Lose, Tie, Overtime Points.

• Win in regulation or in OT – Get a W. 2 points.
• Lose in regulation – Get an L. 0 points.
• Lose in OT – Get an L but an OP as well. (This shows that you lost while actually playing hockey, but gives you the point for getting through 60 minutes.) 1point.
• No one wins after 65 minutes (regulation & OT) – Each team gets a tie since no one actually won a proper hockey game. 1 point.
• Shootout winner gets an OP as well, so SO winner still gets 2 points but those 2 points do not carry the same weight as a win due to the NHL’s tiebreaking system.