Unless it ends in a tie (overtime is only 5 minutes). It's not really stupid, it gives the losing team credit for the fact that they tied in a regulation-length game.Originally posted by: Argo
That's kinda stupid. So teams that go to overtime get 3 points between themselves, yet teams that end in regulation only 2???
the 1 point for overtime loss was adopted in 1999, I think. They also made it 4 players from each team instead of the usual 5 players from each team on the ice.Originally posted by: emmpee
2 points for a win, none for a loss, 1 for a tie... and 1 for an overtime loss? i'm sure about all but the overtime loss part.
They made the change because they believed it would open up more OT wins. It seemed as though teams would not want to risk the point going for a win in OT.Originally posted by: kt
the 1 point for overtime loss was adopted in 1999, I think. They also made it 4 players from each team instead of the usual 5 players from each team on the ice.Originally posted by: emmpee
2 points for a win, none for a loss, 1 for a tie... and 1 for an overtime loss? i'm sure about all but the overtime loss part.
If they are in the same conference they won't go for it but if they are in different conferences then they will because it does not really matter if they only get the one pointOriginally posted by: Wingznut
They made the change because they believed it would open up more OT wins. It seemed as though teams would not want to risk the point going for a win in OT.Originally posted by: kt
the 1 point for overtime loss was adopted in 1999, I think. They also made it 4 players from each team instead of the usual 5 players from each team on the ice.Originally posted by: emmpee
2 points for a win, none for a loss, 1 for a tie... and 1 for an overtime loss? i'm sure about all but the overtime loss part.
Very true... But what I meant was (with the old system), the teams wouldn't want to lose the point in OT, so they'd play very conservative.Originally posted by: Aquaman
If they are in the same conference they won't go for it but if they are in different conferences then they will because it does not really matter if they only get the one pointOriginally posted by: Wingznut
They made the change because they believed it would open up more OT wins. It seemed as though teams would not want to risk the point going for a win in OT.Originally posted by: kt
the 1 point for overtime loss was adopted in 1999, I think. They also made it 4 players from each team instead of the usual 5 players from each team on the ice.Originally posted by: emmpee
2 points for a win, none for a loss, 1 for a tie... and 1 for an overtime loss? i'm sure about all but the overtime loss part.
Unless you pull your goalie & they scoreOriginally posted by: Wingznut
Very true... But what I meant was (with the old system), the teams wouldn't want to lose the point in OT, so they'd play very conservative.Originally posted by: Aquaman
If they are in the same conference they won't go for it but if they are in different conferences then they will because it does not really matter if they only get the one pointOriginally posted by: Wingznut
They made the change because they believed it would open up more OT wins. It seemed as though teams would not want to risk the point going for a win in OT.Originally posted by: kt
the 1 point for overtime loss was adopted in 1999, I think. They also made it 4 players from each team instead of the usual 5 players from each team on the ice.Originally posted by: emmpee
2 points for a win, none for a loss, 1 for a tie... and 1 for an overtime loss? i'm sure about all but the overtime loss part.
With the change, you cannot lose a point in OT.
Are you for real?Originally posted by: Aquaman
Also Overtime loss = 0 if you pull your goalie and they score.
Cheers,
Aquaman