Do you agree with NHL GMs who voted against the 3 point regulation win?

The system we have now might be the stupidest thing ive ever heard of in my entire life, and i don't know why the NHL ever adopted a system where some games result in 2 points being awarded to teams and other being 3 points (2 and 1).

I think without question the NHL should adopt the 3 point regulation win system, and i can't believe anyone actually voted against it.

The reason points were added for OT losses is so that the teams try in OT because they have nothing to lose only something to gain, but now you see when it's tied at the end of regulation teams are trying to fight through that to pick up the guaranteed one point and then get the oppurtunity for more later.

I think 3-2-1 system would enhance both OT play AND end of regulation play, and would also make for a more fairer NHL.

The fact that you reach the 60 minute mark with the score tied and all of a sudden you are giving away an extra point is absolutely ridiculous. Should we give a point in baseball for reaching extra innings? And if you like the extra point why stop there? Why not split 3 points for a first period tie,. 5 for a second period tie, 7 for a game tie, 9 for an overtime tie, and 11 for a shootout???? It's absurd!!!!! Either go with won-loss, have a 3 point win, or eliminate the shootout. Or even have 6 points that you split 6-0 for regulation, 5-1 for overtime and 4-2 for shootout. Or continue to see boring defensive hockey in the 3rd period to "get that point" which we all want to get away from.

At least you can't blame THIS act of stupidity on Bettman.

I don't really like the shootout, but I can tolerate it for the good of the sport. People seem to like it, and it's not a total crapshoot--shootouts do take some skill, especially on the part of the goalie. However, they should probably extend overtime to 10 minutes of 4 on 4 hockey, maybe even more. But at least make it 10, that should keep shootout more unusual, I guess.

The single point for a tie--ooops--i meant OT loss---annoys the heck out of me. Teams should not be rewarded for sitting on it for the last 10 minutes of regulation when it's tied. A win is a win and a loss is a loss, period. If you want to keep the point for an OT loss, then a reg win should be worth 3 points. At least that is balanced.

But who cares, it's just regular season hockey. The playoffs are what really matters.

Thank goodness the owners showed some common sense for once in their lives. Hockey struggles for fans enough as it is, the last thing the sport needs is an even more complicated scoring system. The "points" system only made sense when there were ties. Now that every game is settled, by shootout if necessary, why must we deal with points at all? A win is a win (one point, if you must) and a loss is a loss (0 points).

I think we need to do anything we can to make the game more accessible, without compromising the sport. I didn't like the shootout at first, but now it seems to be here to stay. Now, ditching the point system would be a good move for the NHL.

Unfortunately there is no perfect answer. If you remove the point for an OT loss then you have 5 minutes of OT where nothing happens outside of the neutral zone because teams are so afraid to give up a goal and lose the point. However you have critics who say an OT loss is still a loss and a team should not be rewarded. Then you have people who say they should play all night no matter how long it takes even in the regular season. Critics of that point out that it makes the game last FAR to long and in a way makes the magical aspect of playoff hockey diminish slightly (nothing like a 3OT game end all of a sudden to win/lose a series).

NO TIES!!!!!! You can't have ties now, anyway, because of the shootout, and that is not going away any time soon. It is too popular and successful. Regardless, everyone hated the ties anyway. Good riddance to them!

I agree with their call. There simply is no reason to change the way it is. Honestly, I think how everyone feels about this is going to be completely biased from year-to-year based on how their favorite team fares. The year your favorite time gets bounced because there ISN'T a point for OT, you'll change your tune. Meanwhile, however they do it someone is going to be unhappy.

Thus, I think they should leave it as it is. There just isn't a good enough reason to change it. Change for the sake of change is a waste of time. Whatever you do, everyone is not going to be happy. If a good reason for making a chance occurs, then I'm all for it. So far I have not heard a single reason that is worth the trouble.

Yes I agree with it. I may be in the minority, but I don't like the shootout as a way to decide a game. I have always thought that the games shoudl be played through until someone wins, like in the playoffs. So I think it should be 2 points for a win and 0 points for a loss.

In my point of view, I like the system they currently have. Overtime games should be worth more than a regular time games because both teams were equal and worked hard enough to get them past the 60 minute mark. On average, teams tend to score a winning goal in the 5 minute OT anyway so I don't see why they should go back to the double and triple overtimes. Plus, the shootouts can be rather exciting as long as their not instated in the playoffs. Finally, "Ties" should NEVER be reinstated, ever! I hate to sound like a jerk, but in professional sports there has to be a winner and a loser. So thats my opinion, take it or leave it. :)

I agree with them It should be 2 points for a win regardless if it is in regulation, overtime or a shootout. No points for a loss.

I agree with the GMs, this is probably another one of Bettman's retarded ideas. 3 points will just ruin the game. There shouldn't be a "bonus point", just keep the wins 2 points, an OT/SO loss 1 point, and a OT/SO win, 2 points.