Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

[Koho]

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

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?

The argument was being made that the 'math doesn't add up' if some games are worth 2 points and other 3, which is saying that each season has to be worth the same number of points for a league. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't matter. How you rank a team is based on their win percentage. What percentage of the possible points for one team did they gain, not on what percentage of the total points for the league. Each team either has a possible 3 points per game for one option, or two points per game for the other. So all the matters for determining how many points a game should be worth is if people think that a different amount of points should be awarded based on when the victory occurred. But that is different than the argument that 'points need to add up'.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

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

The argument was being made that the 'math doesn't add up' if some games are worth 2 points and other 3, which is saying that each season has to be worth the same number of points for a league. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't matter. How you rank a team is based on their win percentage. What percentage of the possible points for one team did they gain, not on what percentage of the total points for the league. Each team either has a possible 3 points per game for one option, or two points per game for the other. So all the matters for determining how many points a game should be worth is if people think that a different amount of points should be awarded based on when the victory occurred. But that is different than the argument that 'points need to add up'.

They should need to add up, though.
Say late in a season team A is in first place, one point ahead of two teams (B and C) tied for second. On a given night as the playoff race is coming to a close, team A is playing some random team in another division while the two second place teams play each other. If all games were worth the same number of total points (2, for the sake of argument), team A knows (and rightfully so), that if they take care of business and win their game (in regulation, OT or shootout - doesn't matter), they will remain in first place by one point on the winner of the B v. C game and by three points on the loser. Under the "loser point" system, this is no longer the case. So team A wins and B beats C in a shootout. Now team A is one point ahead of team B, but only two ahead of team C. Worse, say team A loses their game in regulation and B beats C in a shootout. Normally A would know that they'd still be ahead of C and only behind B by one point. Due to the loser point, team A would still be behind B by one point, but would also fall into a tie with team C. On the whole, team A actually loses ground in total because the other two couldn't decide their game in regulation. Not fair to team A, no matter how you cut it.

 

[davyd83]

They should need to add up, though.
Say late in a season team A is in first place, one point ahead of two teams (B and C) tied for second. On a given night as the playoff race is coming to a close, team A is playing some random team in another division while the two second place teams play each other. If all games were worth the same number of total points (2, for the sake of argument), team A knows (and rightfully so), that if they take care of business and win their game (in regulation, OT or shootout - doesn't matter), they will remain in first place by one point on the winner of the B v. C game and by three points on the loser. Under the "loser point" system, this is no longer the case. So team A wins and B beats C in a shootout. Now team A is one point ahead of team B, but only two ahead of team C. Worse, say team A loses their game in regulation and B beats C in a shootout. Normally A would know that they'd still be ahead of C and only behind B by one point. Due to the loser point, team A would still be behind B by one point, but would also fall into a tie with team C. On the whole, team A actually loses ground in total because the other two couldn't decide their game in regulation. Not fair to team A, no matter how you cut it.

However you assign the points, the same total number of points should be awarded for each game.

 

[Patman]

They should need to add up, though.
Say late in a season team A is in first place, one point ahead of two teams (B and C) tied for second. On a given night as the playoff race is coming to a close, team A is playing some random team in another division while the two second place teams play each other. If all games were worth the same number of total points (2, for the sake of argument), team A knows (and rightfully so), that if they take care of business and win their game (in regulation, OT or shootout - doesn't matter), they will remain in first place by one point on the winner of the B v. C game and by three points on the loser. Under the "loser point" system, this is no longer the case. So team A wins and B beats C in a shootout. Now team A is one point ahead of team B, but only two ahead of team C. Worse, say team A loses their game in regulation and B beats C in a shootout. Normally A would know that they'd still be ahead of C and only behind B by one point. Due to the loser point, team A would still be behind B by one point, but would also fall into a tie with team C. On the whole, team A actually loses ground in total because the other two couldn't decide their game in regulation. Not fair to team A, no matter how you cut it.

Easy way to say. 2 overtime losses over two games is the same as a win and a loss

How many “quality losses” are worth a win?

 

[Koho]

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

They should need to add up, though.
Say late in a season team A is in first place, one point ahead of two teams (B and C) tied for second. On a given night as the playoff race is coming to a close, team A is playing some random team in another division while the two second place teams play each other. If all games were worth the same number of total points (2, for the sake of argument), team A knows (and rightfully so), that if they take care of business and win their game (in regulation, OT or shootout - doesn't matter), they will remain in first place by one point on the winner of the B v. C game and by three points on the loser. Under the "loser point" system, this is no longer the case. So team A wins and B beats C in a shootout. Now team A is one point ahead of team B, but only two ahead of team C. Worse, say team A loses their game in regulation and B beats C in a shootout. Normally A would know that they'd still be ahead of C and only behind B by one point. Due to the loser point, team A would still be behind B by one point, but would also fall into a tie with team C. On the whole, team A actually loses ground in total because the other two couldn't decide their game in regulation. Not fair to team A, no matter how you cut it.

First, what conference counts non-conference games in determining the conference winner and why does that matter for your example? It is the conference record that determines the conference champion. Every team in that conference is under the same point system with the same number of possible points. So win percentage is based on the same number of possible point for every team regardless of how many points you assign a win. It adds up! In both scoring systems you decide to say a tie is better than a loss at some point (either end of regulation or end of OT) so the team should get more points (one) than a team that loses outright.

In your first example, you are stuck on the presumption that if team A wins and team C loses, because the old system meant there was now a three point difference (if they were both conference games) that a new system of assigning points MUST have the same results as the old system or it is wrong (doesn't add up). When you change something, it is different. Doesn't make it wrong or mean that points don't add up. Team C only lost because team B the new system found a way to assign a winner (shootout) that didn't exist in the past.

Second example; you can't accept that a team that is tied at some point (team C) gains ground on a team that loses outright (team A)? While there can be some discussion about what makes sense for when you determine to give points for a tie (end of regulation v end of OT), I don't see how you wouldn't give points for a tie compared to a loss, when the NCAA recognizes ties but not the outcome of shootouts or other post- 5 on 5 OT's.

I think part of the difference in thinking here is that everyone always pictures the team that loses in the shootout, or whatever the non-5 on 5 process is used to create a winner, is the team being awarded a 'bonus point'. The reality is, both systems really seem to function more like the original scoring, that if tied at the end of the game/OT, each team receives a point for a tie, but because society needs a winner, we'll add a bonus point for the skills competition winner.

The question in my mind is, when is the appropriate time to call it a tie, the end of regulation or the end of OT? NHL calls a tie at the end of regulation whereas B1G (and I assume all others) don't call it a tie until after the 5 minute, 5 on 5 OT, which is what the league does. NHL felt that when they waited until the end of OT to award a point, too many teams just went into a defensive shell to preserve their point, rather than risk losing it. And by awarding points for a tie at the end of regulation, they were free to use 3 on 3 for OT. The traditionalist in me says it shouldn't be called a tie until after OT, but I see the merit in the NHL approach, and with so many NHL games in a season, can see the benefit in going to 3 on 3.

 

[joecct]

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

Never mind the conferences, what will the NCAA do?

 

[Sean Pickett]

Overtime/Shootout Points

Overtime/Shootout Points

So, after much though on the matter, I have realized my issue is that I don't think the loser should ever be awarded a point. It's the same as having every team make the playoffs.

I think part of the difference in thinking here is that everyone always pictures the team that loses in the shootout, or whatever the non-5 on 5 process is used to create a winner, is the team being awarded a 'bonus point'. The reality is, both systems really seem to function more like the original scoring, that if tied at the end of the game/OT, each team receives a point for a tie, but because society needs a winner, we'll add a bonus point for the skills competition winner.

So, either reward each team with 1 point for reaching the shootout/overtime and let the winner of the skills competition be rewarded with society's adoration, or give both points to the winner of the shootout/overtime and 0 to the loser. After all, both teams know they may have to win the skills competition and should be prepared for it.

Never mind the conferences, what will the NCAA do?

No idea, but in my opinion if the NCAA adopts 4x4/3x3 overtime and/or shootouts then they should count the results of 4x4/3x3 overtime and/or shootouts as wins and losses. Again, both teams would know they may have to win the skills competition and should be prepared for it.

Sean

 

[Koho]

Re: Overtime/Shootout Points

Re: Overtime/Shootout Points

So, after much though on the matter, I have realized my issue is that I don't think the loser should ever be awarded a point. It's the same as having every team make the playoffs.

So, either reward each team with 1 point for reaching the shootout/overtime and let the winner of the skills competition be rewarded with society's adoration, or give both points to the winner of the shootout/overtime and 0 to the loser. After all, both teams know they may have to win the skills competition and should be prepared for it.

No idea, but in my opinion if the NCAA adopts 4x4/3x3 overtime and/or shootouts then they should count the results of 4x4/3x3 overtime and/or shootouts as wins and losses. Again, both teams would know they may have to win the skills competition and should be prepared for it.

Sean

For now, the NCAA sees a game tied at the end of overtime as a tie (traditional scoring method), 1 point for each team. Conferences are free to do what they want after that. But they need to give each team 1 point in the eyes of the NCAA. So I assume conferences can't have a different scoring system altogether. They can add a point to the winner of the skills competition (SO, 4 on 4, 3 on 3, etc.) for conference standings.

I personally don't want to see all the points go to a team that is tied with another after 65 minutes of play because they scored another goal in a shootout. (I would prefer it just end in a tie altogether, but don't see us going back to that.) Beyond that, I don't have a strong opinion on how many points should be awarded.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Overtime/Shootout Points

Re: Overtime/Shootout Points

For now, the NCAA sees a game tied at the end of overtime as a tie (traditional scoring method), 1 point for each team. Conferences are free to do what they want after that. But they need to give each team 1 point in the eyes of the NCAA. So I assume conferences can't have a different scoring system altogether. They can add a point to the winner of the skills competition (SO, 4 on 4, 3 on 3, etc.) for conference standings.

I personally don't want to see all the points go to a team that is tied with another after 65 minutes of play because they scored another goal in a shootout. (I would prefer it just end in a tie altogether, but don't see us going back to that.) Beyond that, I don't have a strong opinion on how many points should be awarded.

Technically, the NCAA doesn't award points; they define a tie as "one-half win and one-half loss". Which means, all of the bases are around the win percentage. That is why it is imperative that every game, regardless of how it ends, is given an equal weighting for national consideration.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

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

First, what conference counts non-conference games in determining the conference winner and why does that matter for your example? It is the conference record that determines the conference champion. Every team in that conference is under the same point system with the same number of possible points. So win percentage is based on the same number of possible point for every team regardless of how many points you assign a win. It adds up! In both scoring systems you decide to say a tie is better than a loss at some point (either end of regulation or end of OT) so the team should get more points (one) than a team that loses outright.

In your first example, you are stuck on the presumption that if team A wins and team C loses, because the old system meant there was now a three point difference (if they were both conference games) that a new system of assigning points MUST have the same results as the old system or it is wrong (doesn't add up). When you change something, it is different. Doesn't make it wrong or mean that points don't add up. Team C only lost because team B the new system found a way to assign a winner (shootout) that didn't exist in the past.

Second example; you can't accept that a team that is tied at some point (team C) gains ground on a team that loses outright (team A)? While there can be some discussion about what makes sense for when you determine to give points for a tie (end of regulation v end of OT), I don't see how you wouldn't give points for a tie compared to a loss, when the NCAA recognizes ties but not the outcome of shootouts or other post- 5 on 5 OT's.

I think part of the difference in thinking here is that everyone always pictures the team that loses in the shootout, or whatever the non-5 on 5 process is used to create a winner, is the team being awarded a 'bonus point'. The reality is, both systems really seem to function more like the original scoring, that if tied at the end of the game/OT, each team receives a point for a tie, but because society needs a winner, we'll add a bonus point for the skills competition winner.

The question in my mind is, when is the appropriate time to call it a tie, the end of regulation or the end of OT? NHL calls a tie at the end of regulation whereas B1G (and I assume all others) don't call it a tie until after the 5 minute, 5 on 5 OT, which is what the league does. NHL felt that when they waited until the end of OT to award a point, too many teams just went into a defensive shell to preserve their point, rather than risk losing it. And by awarding points for a tie at the end of regulation, they were free to use 3 on 3 for OT. The traditionalist in me says it shouldn't be called a tie until after OT, but I see the merit in the NHL approach, and with so many NHL games in a season, can see the benefit in going to 3 on 3.

Ok. It seems like I've confused you. I don't have the time to read this enough times to figure out what you're talking about.
To put it a different, less specific way... I was just making the point that in the NHL point system, two teams that go beyond regulation in a given game can pile up a combined total of 3 points on their competition, while two other teams that finish in regulation can only get a total of 2 points. Not fair. Games need to all be worth the same number of points.
As far as conference vs. non-conference... Obviously I was talking about conference or division standings, not national rankings.
I'm also against any system that encourages teams at any time of the game to not try to win. I know they were trying to eliminate the teams sitting on ties through OT to avoid losing the one point. Unfortunately they created a situation where teams can sit on ties through the last 5, 10, 15, or whatever minutes of regulation knowing that they can guarantee one point and still have a shot at the second. It can make for boring late game hockey at times.

 

[Koho]

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

Ok. It seems like I've confused you. I don't have the time to read this enough times to figure out what you're talking about.
To put it a different, less specific way... I was just making the point that in the NHL point system, two teams that go beyond regulation in a given game can pile up a combined total of 3 points on their competition, while two other teams that finish in regulation can only get a total of 2 points. Not fair. Games need to all be worth the same number of points.

WHY? Why do the points have to add up the same in two games? What is 'not fair'? You haven't explained that. A given team's record is based on the percentage of possible points they gain. Maximum they can achieve is twice the number of games they play. It doesn't matter if the game ends in regulation or later. A team can only get a maximum of 2 points. That is what matters. Every team is under the same rule. Make it to the end of the game tied and you get a point more than a team that is behind after 60 minutes. Seems like the team that managed to stay tied maybe deserves a point for doing better than the team that lost in regulation. But you are saying that is not fair. It is just a different way of scoring, not something that is not fair. How many points are awarded in a game doesn't affect any of this.

The argument about what sort of play it encourages is different than what is fair, and to some degree a matter of opinion, since it is hard to prove. Having watched a lot more NHL hockey in the last few years than I used to, I can't say I have the impression that teams are trying to protect ties towards the end of the game. And I don't know anyone else who has said they observe that. If anything, I think it has the opposite effect. If you are a team trying to distance yourself from an opponent in the standings, why would you try to hold on to MAYBE get an extra point in an uncertain 3-on-3 or shootout, when winning in regulation puts you 2 points up on your opponenet?

I'm not so sure I am the one who is confused.

 

[TovarishchLisa]

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

The rules changes are out:

-Standardized OT. 5 on 5. Five minutes. Shootouts will only be used in in-season tournaments that don't use continuous OT.
-Video review for ejections
-The committee redefined slashing to encourage better enforcement and specifically identified this as an illegal defensive tactic. (Expect a crackdown at the start of next season)
-For a substitution to be legal, the player coming off the ice must be within 5 feet of their bench before the substitute may contact the ice.
-In overtime games, each team will have one timeout to utilize in overtime, regardless of whether a timeout was used during regulation play.
-The number of skaters allowed to each team will be increased to 19 (current rule allows up to 18).
-A player who catches the puck must immediately place it on the ice for play to continue legally. If a player catches and conceals or throws the puck, a minor penalty shall be assessed.
-To reduce the number of video review situations, coaches must use a challenge to review goals scored where a potential high stick is involved or plays where the puck touches the netting out of play and leads to a goal.

 

[joecct]

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

The NCHC is not amused.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

The NCHC is not amused.

They actually aren't: http://mihockey.com/2018/06/ncaa-ho...andate-of-five-on-five-overtime-no-shootouts/

 

[cetihcra]

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

They actually aren't: http://mihockey.com/2018/06/ncaa-ho...andate-of-five-on-five-overtime-no-shootouts/

In the NCHC, every game will be an in-season tournament!

r

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

In the NCHC, every game will be an in-season tournament!

r

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the last we hard about it though, similar to the arguments surrounding the changes they wanted to make to the PK in 2010. I wouldn't be shocked if this was amended before July.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

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

Not a single D1 representative west of Pennsylvania and none from a conference that used 3on3. What positive is gained by taking away the option for conferences?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Not a single D1 representative west of Pennsylvania and none from a conference that used 3on3. What positive is gained by taking away the option for conferences?

When the game is different from conference to conference, you're spending more time preparing for all these weird nuances in non-conference games (remember that the host team's conference's rules are used). Let's also consider, when 3x3 happens, the game has been extended beyond NCAA sanction when it is not deemed necessary for match-up that there must be a winner and a loser, which adds to the risk of injury, so it can be construed that the NCAA is protecting the interest of the student athlete.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

When the game is different from conference to conference, you're spending more time preparing for all these weird nuances in non-conference games (remember that the host team's conference's rules are used). Let's also consider, when 3x3 happens, the game has been extended beyond NCAA sanction when it is not deemed necessary for match-up that there must be a winner and a loser, which adds to the risk of injury, so it can be construed that the NCAA is protecting the interest of the student athlete.

Non-conference teams are not forced to play beyond the 5 minutes regardless of the location of the game. If any Hockey East coach spends even a minute "preparing" for 3on3 over time because of an upcoming nonconference game, they are focusing on the wrong things.

I can't find it right now, but a poll of players in the nchc about 3on3 overtime showed a significant majority of them were in favor. That's not protecting the players interest, especially if those same players want the experience so they're prepared for literally every other hockey league.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Non-conference teams are not forced to play beyond the 5 minutes regardless of the location of the game. If any Hockey East coach spends even a minute "preparing" for 3on3 over time because of an upcoming nonconference game, they are focusing on the wrong things.

I can't find it right now, but a poll of players in the nchc about 3on3 overtime showed a significant majority of them were in favor. That's not protecting the players interest, especially if those same players want the experience so they're prepared for literally every other hockey league.

Have you even bore witness to any away non-conference games aside from the final score? When a non-conference game happens, they go by the league's rules of the host team, because it is the host team that chooses the ground rules. When playing at AHC, the game must have three breaks during a period, because that is the league's rule. When playing at B1G, you must conclude a tied game with a shootout, because that is the league's rule. When playing at ECAC, after 5 minute OT, the game ends as a tie, because that is the league's rule. If there is no host team or league, then the NCAA rules take precedence. And if your argument is that they can argue for NCAA rules, as much as it is technically true, it doesn't bode well for relations between the schools.