Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Points for nothing.

One of the things that has really been grinding my gears lately is the points for an overtime loss. blah.

The point for an overtime loss was originally put in after they made overtime 4-on-4. It was to appease the teams who said, 'well now it's easier to score'. (I mean, no shat eh? that was the point right?)

But when they introduced the shootout after the lockout, why didn't they remove that overtime point? In all seriousness, it's overtime, it's fair hockey. If your team lets a goal in, in overtime of game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final.... you don't get a point. You lose and you go cry in your beer somewhere. Why is the NHL awarding a point to team who wasn't good enough?

I think the point for an overtime loss is cheap. Get rid of it.

Now on the other hand. I do agree with a point being awarded for a shootout loss.

The shootout, as fun as it is to watch, is still a tough one to take. I still have horrible horrible nightmares about the Nagano Olympics... I'm sure the American junior team has horrible horrible dreams about Leksand, Sweden.

Shootouts are the result of the goaltenders, and usually 6 players. It's not a team thing. So a point for a loss in a shootout, yah give it to them. Because I think the shootout is more for the fans.


Q-girl said...

...but then the Mooseheads would only have 2 points. The extra point kinda makes me feel fuzzy inside.

Q-girl said...

oh wait, that was a point from a shootout loss. Please ignore me.

Jenn Casey said...

hahaha, yah we'd have to make it to overtime for this to really be an issue eh? bah.