The Great Debate
Good hockey or a successful team?
That’s the problem with the points situation in the NHL right now. Analysts are saying that the one point given to the losing team in a game that goes to overtime or a shootout should be gotten rid of.
The main argument for this is that if a team loses, why should it get a point? This isn’t minor hockey where we have to worry about the kids’ feelings when they lose games so we give them an extra point, this is professional hockey.
If only two points were given out each game and there were no such thing as a three point game anymore, it would change the standings, thus making it easier for winning teams to create space between themselves and the team chasing them.
For example, on the current points system the Canucks are six points back of Anaheim and 2 points ahead of Calgary.
If there was no such thing as a consolation point, the Canucks would be six points up on Calgary, and tied with Anaheim. All because the Canucks are a flat out better team after regulation.
So this way, the Canucks are winning games and climbing the standings. Great for the Canucks fan, but bad for the hockey fan.
The argument for keeping the consolation point is that if it’s taken away, the second a team gets a lead, there’s no doubt there gonna sit on it, and there will be no offence in the last stages of the game and in overtime.
It will be boring hockey similar to the Minnesota Wild’s trapping team of a few years ago, and almost every game will go to a shootout since teams won’t taken any chances on offence if a game is tied late. But hey, my team is winning games, and that’s all the matters, right?
So my conclusion, take away the consolation point, and hope to God the good guys win a lot of shootouts.
