CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

[pgb-ohio]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

Yup. I can envision only one scenario where I will find the shootout to be palatable, that of an in-season tournament, but in all other phases of our game, no way. But if you're going to do it, this is a better way, IMHO.

Agreed on both counts.

The new system creates a 1 point bonus for winning the traditional way. Or, if you prefer, there is a 1 point penalty for the gimmick victory. And regardless of the outcome, all games award the same total number of points. In comparison to last year's system, that's a much healthier incentive structure.

The CCHA got this one right. We're all quick to criticize the league when it messes up. Nothing wrong with that, but we should also give credit when credit is due.

[mcfarljd]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

???

Michigan would have had 3 points on Miami.

Notre Dame 69, Michigan 60, Miami 57, Alaska 47;
Ohio State 46, Northern Michigan 41, Western Michigan 35, Ferris State 34;
Nebraska-Omaha 34, Lake Superior State 28, Michigan State 28, Bowling Green 25.



How? It probably benefits the better team, which is good.

I assume that you agree that standings should be calculated so that teams are ahead of all of the teams they are better than, and behind all of the teams they are worse than. Of course it is impossible to guarantee this result, but the change clearly makes it more likely, and that is a very good thing.

ND would have had 72 not 69.
This is how the standings would have looked if this were implemented a season ago...

1 ND: 72
2 Michigan: 60
3 Miami: 57
4 Alaska: 50
5 Ohio State: 49
6 Northern: 44
7 Western: 37
8 UNO: 37
9 Ferris: 36
10 Michigan State: 31
11 Lake State: 29
12 Bowling Green: 25

Can anyone care to guess the number of final standings changes that occurred? Actually only one, Michigan State broke a tie for 10th and jumped over Lake State. Other than that all this did was create more of a gap between the leagues three tiered talent of teams. The good teams will find a way to win in the 65 minutes, they might lay an egg every now and then, but more often than not the better team will come away with all the points instead of lucking out in a cointoss shootout.

[streaker]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

The better team wins a hockey game about 70 percent of the time. The better team wins a shootout essentially 50 percent of the time. You might as well flip a coin to award the points. If the league wants to have the shootout, fine, but let's not pretend that the shootout helps determine the better team. The less influence the shootout has on the standings the better, and the more influence the actual game has on the standings the better. This change reduces the influence of the shootout and increases the influence of the game, and helps to make the standings more closely based on the quality of the teams in the league.

This is truly the heart of the matter, and why I don't like the shootout gimmick. And yes, this gives me vertigo reading the standings.

[CornwallAce]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

Well, this beats my Advanced Stableford System for hockey

4 pts - win in regulation
3 pts - win in ot
2 pts - tie
1 pt - loss in ot
0 pts - loss in regulation

The regular stableford system for shootouts is crazier
(I see people share my insanity, but they didn't have the name or the half point!)

5 pts - win in regulation
3.5 pts - win in OT
3 pts - win in shootout
2 pts - loss in shootout
1.5 pt - loss in ot
0 pts - loss in regulation

[Alton]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

I'm quoting the USCHO article, so the ??? should be directed at the writer.

You are right; that's pretty bad. Three assertions about how the standings would have changed, and two of them are wrong.

(1) Michigan would have been ahead of Miami by 7 points? No:
Michigan: 60 points (20 regulation wins x 3 points = 60 points)
Miami: 57 points (17 regulation wins, 2 shootout wins, 2 shootout losses: 17 x 3 + 2 x 2 + 2 x 1 = 57 points)

(2) Ferris State would have finished ahead of Nebraska-Omaha? Yes, but only assuming the tiebreaker is still the same.

(3) Bowling Green would have finished ahead of Michigan State? No:
Michigan State: 28 points (7 regulation wins, 3 shootout wins, 1 shootout loss)
Bowling Green: 25 points (8 regulation/overtime wins, 0 shootout wins, 1 shootout loss)

[ND Hockey]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

5 - regulation win
4 - OT win
3 - gimmick win
2 - gimmick loss
1 - OT loss
0 - regulation loss

I like this idea, but looking at the CCHA standings shouldn't give me a seizure.

[Alton]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

Obviously you agree the better teams are sometimes "helped" along the way (think back to when the CCHA game of the week always featured either MSU or Michigan). Don't you think that is unfair?

If you were a college football fan, which would you rather have seen on ABC on September 12: Michigan-Notre Dame or Indiana-Western Michigan? I don't think it is "unfair" that Southern Cal gets more TV games than Middle Tennessee State in football; it is the way of the world. It certainly doesn't win games for Southern Cal. This is pretty far afield from our discussion, though.

Not understanding this... What if I told you I thought Miami was better than ND last season? Yet the standings clearly showed otherwise? Teams should get points for wins or ties, whether or not they are the "better" team or not. I can guarantee Michigan is better than BG on paper, but what if by some fluke, BG won more games than Michigan? What you're espousing is that Michigan should be helped because, on paper, they blow most teams out of the water.

Sorry; we must be talking past each other. I will try again. This has to do with awarding points based on (1) 60-65 minutes of hockey, or (2) a coin flip.

The better team wins a hockey game about 70 percent of the time. The better team wins a shootout essentially 50 percent of the time. You might as well flip a coin to award the points. If the league wants to have the shootout, fine, but let's not pretend that the shootout helps determine the better team. The less influence the shootout has on the standings the better, and the more influence the actual game has on the standings the better. This change reduces the influence of the shootout and increases the influence of the game, and helps to make the standings more closely based on the quality of the teams in the league.

[Jeff_Jackson_for_Pres.]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

???

I'm quoting the USCHO article, so the ??? should be directed at the writer.

How? It probably benefits the better team, which is good.

Obviously you agree the better teams are sometimes "helped" along the way (think back to when the CCHA game of the week always featured either MSU or Michigan). Don't you think that is unfair?

I assume that you agree that standings should be calculated so that teams are ahead of all of the teams they are better than, and behind all of the teams they are worse than. Of course it is impossible to guarantee this result, but the change clearly makes it more likely, and that is a very good thing.

Not understanding this... What if I told you I thought Miami was better than ND last season? Yet the standings clearly showed otherwise? Teams should get points for wins or ties, whether or not they are the "better" team or not. I can guarantee Michigan is better than BG on paper, but what if by some fluke, BG won more games than Michigan? What you're espousing is that Michigan should be helped because, on paper, they blow most teams out of the water.

[Patman]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

I don't see how the league is "boxing itself in". If any of these decisions proved to be universally unpopular or viewed as failures, they could always be reversed in subsequent seasons. Also, the three point thing is not a new idea. It is used in USA Hockey's national championships, and I believe, in some international tournaments as well.

it means they'll try other ways to prove the shootout is a good idea even if its not. They're boxing themselves in to defend it at all costs.

[Alton]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

It's interesting to note that had they used this system last season, Michigan would've had seven points on Miami.

???

Michigan would have had 3 points on Miami.

Notre Dame 69, Michigan 60, Miami 57, Alaska 47;
Ohio State 46, Northern Michigan 41, Western Michigan 35, Ferris State 34;
Nebraska-Omaha 34, Lake Superior State 28, Michigan State 28, Bowling Green 25.

Conspiracy theorists (with whom I am frequently aligned) can claim this is another way to benefit the haves

How? It probably benefits the better team, which is good.

I assume that you agree that standings should be calculated so that teams are ahead of all of the teams they are better than, and behind all of the teams they are worse than. Of course it is impossible to guarantee this result, but the change clearly makes it more likely, and that is a very good thing.

[gophers79]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

I don't remember where I saw the idea posted, but I like the following... if we MUST include the gimmick, er, shootout in games.

5 - regulation win
4 - OT win
3 - gimmick win
2 - gimmick loss
1 - OT loss
0 - regulation loss

I like it since every game is worth the same number of points, 5, and an OT win isn't worth quite as much as a regulation win, and any game that goes to the gimmick is as close to a tie as you can get without awarding half points.

I was just going to post this idea myself. I've thought that the NHL and any league using shootouts should go to this format for quite some time. Also, rep for the "gimmick win" and "gimmick loss"

[moe24]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

But if I were the boss, I'd make the shootout worth even less and adopt the old HEA scoring system of 5-3-2-0.

I don't remember where I saw the idea posted, but I like the following... if we MUST include the gimmick, er, shootout in games.

5 - regulation win
4 - OT win
3 - gimmick win
2 - gimmick loss
1 - OT loss
0 - regulation loss

I like it since every game is worth the same number of points, 5, and an OT win isn't worth quite as much as a regulation win, and any game that goes to the gimmick is as close to a tie as you can get without awarding half points.

[Jeff_Jackson_for_Pres.]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

It's interesting to note that had they used this system last season, Michigan would've had seven points on Miami. Conspiracy theorists (with whom I am frequently aligned) can claim this is another way to benefit the haves (Michigan), while others can (justifiably) claim that Michigan (who never even had an OT game last season) just worked their arses off to win in regulation. Not sure which side I'm on in this debate...

I do know one thing, though. I still loathe the SO.

[ND Hockey]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

I'm glad the CCHA realized that shootout wins should not be worth as much as winning the game in regulation or overtime. But if I were the boss, I'd make the shootout worth even less and adopt the old HEA scoring system of 5-3-2-0.

[ts8801]

Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

I like the three point system that is used in for professional soccer of; 3 points for a win and 1 point for a tie. I don't think 2 ties should equal a win in the standings.