Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

If you're going to steal stuff, it might as well be from somebody you think is smart.

Only steal the best else the risk/reward curve is not in your favor.

 

[Patman]

'Doesn't add up' to what? The math with the other option is that all wins are worth 2 points, whether in regulation or OT. Who says that by the end of the year, if you add all the points of all the teams, it has to add up to a certain value? What matters is that the best team is crowned the conference champion (or in the NHL, that the top 8 teams make it from each conference). I just don't see how one method does a better job of this than the other.

But yet you’re looking to change the method... so you think it does something... does it not?

My answer, if we are worried about ties go 3-1-0 and let itself sort out. I hate the idea of awarding extra points for overtime.

 

[Patman]

Stolen from myself at http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/:



*Points matter as much as, ... well, ... points on "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"

And some of us think shootouts are dumb. So let’s base it out of 10.

10-5-0 for some 10-8-6-4-2-0 for others

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

And some of us think shootouts are dumb. So let’s base it out of 10.

10-5-0 for some 10-8-6-4-2-0 for others

You must've missed lowest common denominator day in math class.


I'm no fan of skills competitions (shootouts) or changing the rules (5x5 --> 3x3) to get to a "must have" winner. I can deal with ties. And I'm even less of a fan of "magic points" (the 3 standings points from a 2 point NHL game).

However, in a world where we have OT and shootouts, I value a regulation win as better than in OT and a win in OT far better than winning a shootout. That's why I see a 5-point system as better in a shootout world; it allows for discernment in the standings. And, it values every game the same (five points).

Put another way:
Why should a team that wins four games in OT be viewed "standings same" as a team that wins four games in regulation?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

You must've missed lowest common denominator day in math class.


I'm no fan of skills competitions (shootouts) or changing the rules (5x5 --> 3x3) to get to a "must have" winner. I can deal with ties. However, in a world where we have OT and shootouts, I value a regulation win as better than in OT and a win in OT far better than winning a shootout. That's why I see a 5-point system as better in a shootout world; it allows for discernment in the standings.

Put another way: Why should a team that wins four games in OT be viewed "standings same" as a team that wins four games in regulation?

So how is this going to affect national considerations? Are you thinking just call it a tie after regulation? Or do they need to also adopt the OT/shootout considerations and calculate the RatingsPI as fractional wins? Because based on the differences of how leagues do things now, no one is going to agree on a single overtime and shootout/skills-competition procedure, aside from the playoffs' play until someone scores.

 

[TheRevengeance]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

My issue with the 3-2-1 system is I think every actual hockey win should be worth the same. I don't want to see a team have to decide to pull their goalie with a minute left in regulation of a tie game because they absolutely need 3 points rather than 2, only to have the ENG tank them in the RPI/Pairwise. I think every 5 on 5 win should count the same whether it's in the first 60 or the extra 5. If you want to start dividing points during gimmick overtimes or shootouts I'm fine with that and would much rather 3-2-1 than just 2-1 there, but don't take away points from teams before the actual hockey is over.

So the tl;dr would be keep the current system with the winner getting 3 and loser getting 0 + full Pairwise ramifications through OT, then after OT ends call it a pairwise tie and do whatever you want. If you keep ties rather than adding extra rounds you can keep the 2 point system, otherwise 3.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

My issue with the 3-2-1 system is I think every actual hockey win should be worth the same. I don't want to see a team have to decide to pull their goalie with a minute left in regulation of a tie game because they absolutely need 3 points rather than 2, only to have the ENG tank them in the RPI/Pairwise. I think every 5 on 5 win should count the same whether it's in the first 60 or the extra 5. If you want to start dividing points during gimmick overtimes or shootouts I'm fine with that and would rather 3-2-1 than just 2-1 there, but don't take away points from teams before the actual hockey is over.

So the tl;dr would be keep the current system with the winner getting 3 and loser getting 0 + full Pairwise ramifications through OT, then after OT ends do whatever you want.

Assuming that a 5 minute 5v5 OT will remain. The discussion has been bringing up the possibility that some leagues don't want it, and would rather be closer to NHL (3v3) or IIHF (4v4).

 

[beaverhockeyfan]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

My issue with the 3-2-1 system is I think every actual hockey win should be worth the same. I don't want to see a team have to decide to pull their goalie with a minute left in regulation of a tie game because they absolutely need 3 points rather than 2, only to have the ENG tank them in the RPI/Pairwise. I think every 5 on 5 win should count the same whether it's in the first 60 or the extra 5. If you want to start dividing points during gimmick overtimes or shootouts I'm fine with that and would much rather 3-2-1 than just 2-1 there, but don't take away points from teams before the actual hockey is over.

So the tl;dr would be keep the current system with the winner getting 3 and loser getting 0 + full Pairwise ramifications through OT, then after OT ends call it a pairwise tie and do whatever you want. If you keep ties rather than adding extra rounds you can keep the 2 point system, otherwise 3.

That is how the WCHA handles it. 60 minutes of regular hockey followed by a 5 on 5, 5 minute OT. If a team wins during either of those, they get the full three points. If the teams remain tied, they each get a point and then play a five minute, 3 on 3 for the extra point. If they are still tied, they go to a sudden death shoot-out for the extra point.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

That is how the WCHA handles it. 60 minutes of regular hockey followed by a 5 on 5, 5 minute OT. If a team wins during either of those, they get the full three points. If the teams remain tied, they each get a point and then play a five minute, 3 on 3 for the extra point. If they are still tied, they go to a sudden death shoot-out for the extra point.

It would seem to me, though, that they would prefer to go directly to 3v3 instead of dealing with 5v5.

 

[BGDrew]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Sooner or later the NCAA is going to mirror the NHL’s overtime procedures. Don’t forget the push to become a stronger “feeder” system for NA professional hockey.

 

[davyd83]

It would seem to me, though, that they would prefer to go directly to 3v3 instead of dealing with 5v5.

I haven’t heard one coach suggest going direct to 3x3. Most of them don’t like 3x3 very much.

 

[UMICH]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

My issue with the 3-2-1 system is I think every actual hockey win should be worth the same. I don't want to see a team have to decide to pull their goalie with a minute left in regulation of a tie game because they absolutely need 3 points rather than 2, only to have the ENG tank them in the RPI/Pairwise. I think every 5 on 5 win should count the same whether it's in the first 60 or the extra 5. If you want to start dividing points during gimmick overtimes or shootouts I'm fine with that and would much rather 3-2-1 than just 2-1 there, but don't take away points from teams before the actual hockey is over.

So the tl;dr would be keep the current system with the winner getting 3 and loser getting 0 + full Pairwise ramifications through OT, then after OT ends call it a pairwise tie and do whatever you want. If you keep ties rather than adding extra rounds you can keep the 2 point system, otherwise 3.

But the NCAA (and therefore the Pairwise) do not recognize either shootouts or the 3rd point. They only affect league standings. The situation that you described would be considered by the Head Coach but ultimately every coach would most certainly take a likely tournament birth over a potential league championship.

 

[Koho]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

But yet you’re looking to change the method... so you think it does something... does it not?

My answer, if we are worried about ties go 3-1-0 and let itself sort out. I hate the idea of awarding extra points for overtime.

I'm not looking to change the method. I don't really care. I think both produce the correct conference winner and the NCAA only considers the score after OT, not after a shootout, so it doesn't matter. I just don't see how a 'bonus' point is such an abomination.

 

[Koho]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

The idea is the points should be reflective of the percentage of effectiveness of a team in a given season. By making OT games worth 3 and regulation worth 2 (aggregate of course), you're adding more value to games going to overtime. Likewise, if we go the other way and look at soccer, you have 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw, so points get "left on the table" (or they go "to the house" for a draw). If the point is that draws should not be worth a one-half win and only one-third, then so be it. However, by adding more value to OT, you get to the feeling where some teams will play for the regulation tie in order to improve their situation.

The points that are given to each individual team, whether 2 for a win or 3, IS reflective of of the effectiveness of that team. How many points are awarded league-wide for the season doesn't change that, or in your example, how many points an individual game is worth.

So what matters really, is the question, should a shootout or OT win be valued less than a regulation win? How points adds up for the league is like one poster suggests, as important as points on Whose Line is It.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

The points that are given to each individual team, whether 2 for a win or 3, IS reflective of of the effectiveness of that team. How many points are awarded league-wide for the season doesn't change that, or in your example, how many points an individual game is worth.

So what matters really, is the question, should a shootout or OT win be valued less than a regulation win? How points adds up for the league is like one poster suggests, as important as points on Whose Line is It.

You're only looking at it from the win perspective. We're looking at it from the other side of the coin. Should overtime or a shootout be valued more than regulation as a whole?

 

[Patman]

You must've missed lowest common denominator day in math class.


I'm no fan of skills competitions (shootouts) or changing the rules (5x5 --> 3x3) to get to a "must have" winner. I can deal with ties. And I'm even less of a fan of "magic points" (the 3 standings points from a 2 point NHL game).

However, in a world where we have OT and shootouts, I value a regulation win as better than in OT and a win in OT far better than winning a shootout. That's why I see a 5-point system as better in a shootout world; it allows for discernment in the standings. And, it values every game the same (five points).

Put another way:
Why should a team that wins four games in OT be viewed "standings same" as a team that wins four games in regulation?

I’m saying “keep your shootouts off of me you ****ed dirty ape!”

 

[Patman]

Sooner or later the NCAA is going to mirror the NHL’s overtime procedures. Don’t forget the push to become a stronger “feeder” system for NA professional hockey.

So we should repeat their bad ideas because everybody is doing it? When the NHL says jump why do the CCHA schools say “how high?”

And yes, I meant CCHA. You guys have been at this since before the great shakeup

 

[BGDrew]

So we should repeat their bad ideas because everybody is doing it? When the NHL says jump why do the CCHA schools say “how high?”

And yes, I meant CCHA. You guys have been at this since before the great shakeup

Had I known I had any power at all I would have used it a lot sooner.

Food in every press box!

 

[UMD21]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Shootouts in regular season after two short overtimes (like NCHC, 5 on 5 then 4 on 4 or 3 on 3) to me is fine--most casual fans would rather not see a tie. Come post season, we should never see anything less than full overtime until it is decided.
As much as anything, I would originally say out of conference play should be more heavily weighted. On the flip side, you already hear some criticizing certain teams for a cakewalk schedule--which I don't at all agree with since schedules are made ahead and you don't know for sure who will be strong as well as just trying to fill openings with whomever is available. A big drawback I think those fans don't consider is if you really put too much emphasis on out of conference schedules, teams will really hesitate to schedule certain teams in conferences like the AHA and WCHA if a loss would be so catastrophic to their PWR.
As far as the B1G age rule, I'm no expert on junior hockey but they have a hard age limit and a limit on how many over-agers a team can have already so it's not like it is a widespread issue. Also--so you want somebody to come play college hockey but only be eligible for three years, out of a four year university? I could see maybe declaring the over-age junior players as ineligible in the NCAA but if you do that, how is that any more fair than declaring first round draft picks as ineligible for the NCAA? Obviously the latter would be an asinine rule for the reputation of college hockey to be a legitimate feeder program, but it is all tantamount to political gerrymandering to benefit and target select teams within the 60 some field of D1 teams.
Rules are perfect IMO, I appreciate college hockey for how objective the rankings are, and to me this year's BCS championship game highlights the strength of the hockey game. Let's not gravitate towards football politics. I still can't get over how Alabama got a bye week for losing a game, which is such a huge advantage in as wearing and brutal of a sport as football. Can't argue Alabama's power and reputation in football but I will never recognize their championship this year. At least in hockey it's pretty much written into stone what you need to do to make the playoffs. People love to complain about getting screwed in regional seeding, but to be the best you have to be the best in all circumstances. Can't just expect rules to win it for you

 

[UMD21]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Somehow the age proposal went right by me a few years ago. It's pretty fascinating to me. Some things I dug up:
"Further, every Division I athletic conference will be voting on this proposal and all Power Five (autonomous) conferences (PAC-12, SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, ACC) have four votes each while all other conferences only have one." So every other hockey conference besides the B1G essentially has it's hands tied and it all depends what the other conferences vote. Now it makes sense how they may have had the votes to support it but they dropped it. One possible reason that comes to mind: first of all ASU is against it so they could sway the Pac 12 on the issue, and what if the other Power 5 conferences voted against it just to spite the Big 10 for being a bunch of whiny ****es. I also doubt many other teams within the other conferences are even considering adding D1 hockey, but I'm sure they realize that they won't be able to recruit rosters full of players right out of high school in California and be competitive.

So I did the research, 17 junior teams, each team is allowed four over-agers (age 20 at first half of season). So at most there could be 68 twenty-one year old freshmen in a year. I don't think that will make a huge difference personally, but the black eye it would hit the B1G with needing to resort to rule changes is laughable. Time heals and I especially think the future is bright for Michigan and Minnesota and perhaps Notre Dame. Resorting to changing the rules for their advantage would tear the scab right off all over again.

Reading the Star Tribune comments, there were a surprisingly high number of supporters (although not surprising considering it's Gopher base) in even eliminating juniors all together. Knowing MN high school hockey, there is a huge disdain for teams that "recruit", or so it seems when talented players leave their home town to transfer into a new school. The problem is that not all of the best players magically live in Edina, Duluth East, Lakeville. A player from the River Lakes, St. Francis, and Willmar's of the state don't get the recognition and rely on juniors to have a shot at college. Just a lot of tone deafness on the issue by many all together. I guess having the highest NCAA graduation rate of all sports is a big problem to the Big 10.