Why does the NHL still give one point for an overtime loss now that they instituted the shootout?

I like the idea that every game has a winner and a loser, but I don't think winning or losing in overtime should be the same as a 5 - 0 blowout. Rather, I think the NHL should go to the three point game system. If you win in regulation, you get three points. If you win in overtime (including the shootout), you get two points (in effect getting penalized 1 point for not winning in regulation). If you lose in overtime, you get one point. Regulation losers get no points. This way, there are consequences for letting a game go to overtime, and points aren't invented just because the 61st minute is played.

The NHL thinks making some messed up hybrid appeals to more kinds of people. They figured, if we add the shootout more people will watch because they enjoy shootouts, oh wait, then that makes the point system useless because now there are no more ties and thus no reason to really be giving single points to teams. With no single points, then there really is no use to give 2 points for a win. Now we will have to abandon the point system, but this will make fans unhappy so we'll just make some messed up hybrid so everyone's happy. Well are we? Personally, I could do without the shootouts. Yeah they were all fun and exciting at first, but that wore off pretty quickly and now I find myself enjoying penalty shots and breakaways a little less.

It looks alot better to the losing teams fans when they still have a record of 500 or better.Smoking mirrors.

Because they don't have enough brains to figure out that some games are worth three points in the standings and other games just two and that it is completely illogical.

The owners want the point

Two words--Gary Bettman