Bettman says he’s okay if you want to bring back the rule against forward passes, he doesn’t mind if you want to revert to old-school icing, he just demends you keep it to one rule change; you know, evolution is better than revolution…

What rule are you changing, tweaking, binning or creating.

  • cosmo1517@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eliminate the loser point and have the records as W-L only, with goal differential/head-to-head as the tie breakers.

    • 佐藤カズマ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d rather personally see the 3-point system like exists in Europe for this. At least the whole system would be zero-sum at that point.

      • shamrt@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plus the last 10 minutes of every game won’t be so bloody conservative. Teams will want to go for it

        • 佐藤カズマ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          3 points for a win in regulation, 2 for a win in OT, 1 for a loss in OT, and 0 for a loss in regulation. Because the OT winner would lose a point compared to winning in regulation, you wouldn’t have games that are suddenly worth more, compared to the current system where a game yields a total of 3 points if it goes to OT, and 2 if it doesn’t.

        • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I believe it’s basically what hock already has, but regulation wins are three points.

          As far as I know giving regulation wins 3 points to keep number of points possible per game constant would never have changed the standings in a meaningful way.