Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cliffx t1_jarkjj4 wrote

Reply to comment by MathMaddox in [Sportsnet] History has been made! After beating the Buffalo Sabres tonight, the Boston Bruins have become the fastest team in NHL history to reach 100 points in a single season (61 GP). by BCLetsRide69

Agree, get rid of the loser point, or make a win worth 3 points.

Having some games be worth 3 points in the standings and others worth only 2 is bull.

7

MathMaddox t1_jarkxnr wrote

I want to take it step further. No more shootouts, 10min 3v3 and NO points for a tie.

8

garrettj100 t1_jaswkld wrote

I’ll do you one better:

One team enjoys a 1-man advantage during a 6:30 overtime period, 5-4, the whole time. Only catch is the team down a man enjoys tie odds. If the period ends in a tie they win. No more ties ever. No zero-point games where nobody wins. And with 3:00 left in the last OT period one team is going to pull the goalie and play 6-on-4.

Also: WHY IS GOMORRA?

1

MathMaddox t1_jat9heu wrote

Too complicated for me. 3v3 for 10mins and a massive penalty for playing it safe (no points) should end most games.

Also none of this BS of playing for a point late in the season or teams not being able to catch up after their rival lost four straight but got 3 loser points.

2

jamesa7171 t1_jazbc58 wrote

Was this inspired by Armageddon in chess? (a type of tiebreaker game in tournaments where one side is given a significant advantage, but the other side can draw to win)

1

garrettj100 t1_jazix10 wrote

Yes. I follow chess as well. I suggested this to TangoTiger on twitter a few years ago, and he came up with the number of ~6:00 (I've since deleted Twitter), which is roughly the break-even 50% point for the team up a man to score a goal.

Though, Tango also suggested you do a game theory cake-cutting method of choosing the time. One team chooses the time, the other team chooses the side.

1

jamesa7171 t1_jazmy8j wrote

That game theory suggestion was recently proposed officially by the Baltimore Ravens as a way to fix the NFL's sudden death OT problem there (with the opening OT kickoff abandoned, and the starting yard line for the offense being the cake-cutting choice).

I love that kind of idea on a philosophical level, but it seems like it would get analytically solved quite quickly, and after a certain point it would just represent extra formalities to go through before starting OT (compared to just legislating the time).

1

garrettj100 t1_jazntbg wrote

Yeah, I could do without games that aren't the game we're watching as well. Once I heard someone suggest choosing to challenge a call was a game-within-a-game.

That's true. A sucky boring game within a game that's barely more interesting than "What number am I thinking of?"

2

garrettj100 t1_jazny4f wrote

> That game theory suggestion was recently proposed officially by the Baltimore Ravens as a way to fix the NFL's sudden death OT problem there (with the opening OT kickoff abandoned, and the starting yard line for the offense being the cake-cutting choice)

There's just one problem with that proposal: The Chiefs (and possibly others) would offer up the 1-inch line.

1