You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on LA Kings Talk within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Since the addition of the OTL point shouldnt losses be the deciding factor of ties in the standings? I mean getting the OTL point shows a better franchise. It has
Since the addition of the OTL point shouldnt losses be the deciding factor of ties in the standings? I mean getting the OTL point shows a better franchise. It has been said many times on Kings broadcasts and other hockey sources that if you are going to loose a good team does it in OT to get that point. So using this logic would it be safe to say that if you have more losses you are the worst team? Just thought I would point that out.
you would then be rewarding the team with fewer wins and more losses.
for example,
team A is 40-30-12 (92 pts)
team B is 42-32-8 (92 pts)
however if you're just looking at wins and losses (regardless of whether the game went to OT), team A is 40-42 while team B is 42-40. it makes sense the way it works now, where the 42-40 team gets the nod.
No, the real way they should do it is take the bottom five records and the team that has the most points in their last ten games should get the #1 pick. That way you have to win to get the pick while still being bad (bottom five overall) and now you reward team still playing and not tanking.
Since the addition of the OTL point shouldnt losses be the deciding factor of ties in the standings? I mean getting the OTL point shows a better franchise. It has been said many times on Kings broadcasts and other hockey sources that if you are going to loose a good team does it in OT to get that point. So using this logic would it be safe to say that if you have more losses you are the worst team? Just thought I would point that out.
If the points are the same, and the wins are the same, the losses and OTL's will have to be the same. There needs to be another tie breaker.
So it goes...
Points
Wins...
if they are the same, then the losses and OTL's will have to be the same.
Last edited by symbology; April 4th, 2008 at 07:37 PM.
i have no problem with wins being the tie breaker. why should you reward a team for playing conservatively in a close game by playing for the tie. it also makes overtime worth something since the shootout is a bit of a crap shoot. we already have a problem with rewarding teams for losing. look at all those teams whose point totals are inflated because they have so many otls. two years ago the kings would have been in the playoffs and the oilers would have been watching the games on tv if it werent for the otl points. we dont need to make it worse.
Pittsburgh and Montreal are tied at 102 points. At stake? Top record in the east.
Pittsburgh is 47-26-8
Montreal is 46-25-10
After 60 minutes of hockey had been played, Montreal had proven better than or equal too their opponent 56 times. Pittsburgh only 55 times.
Winning in OT may feel like it's equivalent to winning in regulation... but it's not. It's called "overtime" because a hockey game is 60 minutes long. They didn't always play the extra five minutes in the event of a tie after 60 minutes but all those whiny folk who can't live with ties always seem to get their way over time.
Making the least amount of losses the tie-breaker is brilliant and I'm a little miffed I didn't think of it myself.
Losses should be the tiebreaker 
symbology
