Game 74 - Second of Three against Los Pingüinos

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

it's NOT a welfare point if you are tied after 60 minutes.. hello

Any point given to a losing team is welfare. This isn't a church league where everyone wins and gets a ribbon for showing up. It is (or should be) a zero sum proposition. If you win you get something, if you lose you get nothing. I'd sooner give a team that wins in overtime or a shoot-out 1 point instead of 2 than give them 2 points and the losers 1 point.

 

[legoalie]

Any point given to a losing team is welfare. This isn't a church league where everyone wins and gets a ribbon for showing up. It is (or should be) a zero sum proposition. If you win you get something, if you lose you get nothing. I'd sooner give a team that wins in overtime or a shoot-out 1 point instead of 2 than give them 2 points and the losers 1 point.

It is not a welfare point on a tie.. the tie has been around the nhl before you and I were born, no one called it a welfare point then.. you earned the point because you tied the game after 60 minutes of regular hockey.. the "extra" point was brought in to make the game more exciting.. 3 on 3 is not typical hockey, nor is the shoot out, these are skill related events, the "extra" point for winning this is considered the welfare point.. that is why you don't go into the L column if you lose in OT, they made a "special" column for that.. OTL ..

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

It is not a welfare point on a tie.. the tie has been around the nhl before you and I were born, no one called it a welfare point then.. you earned the point because you tied the game after 60 minutes of regular hockey.. the "extra" point was brought in to make the game more exciting.. 3 on 3 is not typical hockey, nor is the shoot out, these are skill related events, the "extra" point for winning this is considered the welfare point.. that is why you don't go into the L column if you lose in OT, they made a "special" column for that.. OTL ..

No, the reason why they don't put overtime losses into the loss column is because if they did people would be able to see just how bad a particular team really is. Like everything else in Bettman's NHL, the object is to keep mediocre teams relevant for as long as possible so that people keep watching and buying tickets.

And they're already talking about expanding the playoffs to include more teams. Again, none of this is because the product is good. It's just a mechanism to allow mediocre teams that don't deserve to be in the playoffs into the playoffs or at least into the playoff hunt. It doesn't change the reality that these teams are garbage.

 

[legoalie]

No, the reason why they don't put overtime losses into the loss column is because if they did people would be able to see just how bad a particular team really is. Like everything else in Bettman's NHL, the object is to keep mediocre teams relevant for as long as possible so that people keep watching and buying tickets.

And they're already talking about expanding the playoffs to include more teams. Again, none of this is because the product is good. It's just a mechanism to allow mediocre teams that don't deserve to be in the playoffs into the playoffs or at least into the playoff hunt. It doesn't change the reality that these teams are garbage.

ha ha ok.. it is easy to add the two lost columns .. the reason why they made the column is actually what it implies, OTL which is Overtime Lost.. I am not debating the NHL product, I am saying that the "welfare point" is for the extra point based on skill events... if the score is 1-0 after the shoot out both goalies are credit with a shut out.. like I said, the tie hockey game has been around before you and I were born, 1 point was given to both teams, that has not changed.. you earn the tie playing regular hockey, so it cannot be a welfare point..

 

[WeHaveMoreCupsThanYou]

Ties were a thing when games couldn't go beyond 60 minutes. When 5 minute overtime was first introduced in the 80's if you gave up a goal in the extra frame you didn't get one point for being tied after 60 minutes. The winning team got two points and you got zilch. Why do these losing teams suddenly get a point now?

 

[legoalie]

Ties were a thing when games couldn't go beyond 60 minutes. When 5 minute overtime was first introduced in the 80's if you gave up a goal in the extra frame you didn't get one point for being tied after 60 minutes. The winning team got two points and you got zilch. Why do these losing teams suddenly get a point now?

they have been tweaking the OT for along time, prior to 1942 (they stopped OT after 1942 because of the war curfews) it was not sudden death but they actually played out the 10 minutes... fast forward to 1999-2000 when they decided to give back the point for the tie because too many games were finishing tied even with the OT and teams not going for the win. 1942 to 1983 no OT .. as long as the OT is 3 on 3 , it is a skill set and so is the shoot out, the point is earned when you are tied after 60 minutes.. that is why they call the OT/SO win the "bonus point".