What's the Point of these Points?
By Buddy Oakes
After Wednesday night's loss (Preds lost 5-4 in OT), I lamented the fact that we got a point out of a losing effort.
We lost the game fair and square and it clearly felt like a loss. So why should we have gotten a point out of the deal?
I try not to get up on a soap box about this every time I feel the desire, but last Saturday when the Predators clearly beat the Panthers, by three goals, we only got one more point than a bunch of losers, who managed to drag the game into overtime.
That is clearly not right.
Eleven of 12 Western Conference teams picked up at least a point on November 28, with four intra-conference games decided in shootouts.
In this messed up world of "fairness" and "political correctness," how is it possible that Edmonton was the only Western team that played without receiving a point? (They were beaten 7-3 by Vancouver.)
Should there have been a committee meeting to award a half-point to the Oilers, so they wouldn't feel left out since the three point games are so "inclusive"?
Pierre LeBrun has a story today about going to a three-point per game system and has the standings with the adjustments made to dish out three points for every game. He points out that 28 per cent of the games this season have had three points awarded due to overtime or shootout.
I may be in the minority (possible because I am older and was not raised in the "inclusive" era of this generation), but I think we need to value every game at two points, regardless of when or how it ends. This would put an end to teams playing for overtime, just to get a point at the end of regulation. It would also put a premium on playing full out for 60 minutes to get the win.
Some will argue that a two-point swing should not be awarded, for what has become an individual skills competition in shootouts. I don't disagree, but that's a story for another day.
I'm sure my win-lose approach is rooted in the fact that I grew up with a father that fought in World War II, who taught me wars were meant to be won and not politicized. The same should apply to hockey.
I want to see a clear winner who carries home two points, and a loser who hopes to do better next time. There is no reason to give the losing team half a portion of milk and cookies, just for hanging in the game past the original 60 minutes.






Alan Bass said:
I used to agree with this argument, but think logically: a team used to get one point for being tied after regulation, before overtime was used. Now you're going to take away that point because overtime has been put in? It doesn't make sense...