Actually, I haven't paid that much attention to hockey in the last five years, and ain't even really sure of their scoring system, so don't eviscerate me if I have it wrong. But I believe it works like this: if the two teams are tied at the end of regulation, they each get at least one point. Then they have a X minute sudden death, after pulling a skater off the ice for each team. If a team scores, they get the two points, but the losing team still gets the point for the regulation draw. MLS could do the same thing, though I wouldn't want them to pull off a player from each team in OT. If tied at the end of 90 minutes, each team automatically gets at least a point from the draw. Then they can go for the 3 points in overtime without fear of losing the point they've already earned from the draw. Yes, it may be a bit confusing to the casual or non-soccer fan, but from my perspective, it would open up overtime a lot as teams wouldn't be worried about "losing" their point for a draw, but would be gung ho on going for the three points. I haven't really thought this through and I'm sure good arguments can be made against my thinking. But I figured I'd throw it out there just for debate...and since it's the off season and I'm tired of all the Landon debates...
Speaking of Landon.. Oh, never mind.. I am happy with the current system for the time being. I do expect a push in maybe 2-3 years to go for the same system used almost everywhere else just ending in a draw though I think most may be happy to keep what we have. Sure beats that awful shoot-out fiasco! As more and more Americans get more soccer knowledge and appreciation, I think dropping overtime would not hurt the game. I just don't know when management will feel safe to do it. I don't think, however, that going for hockey's system will meet with much favor. So far, every move has been in the direction of what is normal elsewhere. Dropping the countdown clock, the shoot-out, adding the stoppage time, going for the home and away for the early rounds of the playoffs, etc..
I'd have to give it a resounding "HELL NO!" Hockey's system only serves to make things more complicated with the standings and provide more statistics for an overly stat-conscious world. MLS has actually been improving things as mentioned by Wolves_67, and I for one (two including Wolves) am glad.
I love the idea in hockey, and IMO I don't think it's confusing at all. I thought about this at the end of the regular MLS season and came up with these numbers. Off the top of my head I remember that 7 teams had 1 overtime loss, and that only 1 team(SJ) had 2. If more teams lost in OT then I think it would be great, but it doesn't happen a lot, so we should just leave it as is. I would like OT to be one fifteen minute period, with each team losing one player or two, so more space could be opened. The NHL did this to create more chances on goal, cut down on ties, and make the end a race to the finish. It worked, too. This would be good to do, but not until the league gets big enough to get away with things, and not get called out for it. So count me in as a no. BTW, we need MORE stats!
simple idea to make sure this never happens get rid of overtime, it already is a hinderance with tv... and it's not part of the world game
I don't really follow hockey, but I've read several diatribes from sports columnists about how the system is needlessly complicated and how it isn't actually doing much to open up OT games. Interestingly, one prominent suggestion was to change the NHL points system to the international soccer standard of win=3/draw=1.
I think the NHL system is pretty stupid, too. Why can't a win be a win and a loss be a loss? It's neat and clean, and works for almost every soccer, basketball, football, baseball, hockey, etc., etc., league in the world, except those that are trying to implement a gimmick. In the old CBA you'd get a point in the standings for winning one quarter of a basketball game - it just gets sillier from there.
I think that MLS should not only go for the same OT point system, as the NHL, but they should pull their keepers.
Since MLS isn't going to listen on the "traditional FIFA lack of overtimes" argument... Giving 1 point for the overtime loser and 3 points for the overtime winner creates an incentive to NOT try to break ties in the last 20 minutes of regulation, especially in the "out-of-division" matches. VERY bad idea. I COULD see giving only 2 points to the overtime winner and 1 point to the loser as a way of opening up those same last minutes. It's debatable, anyway.
Um, no we shouldn't ape hockey. The A-League just moved to a 3-1-0 point schedual, and I can't for the life of me think of a reason to make American soccer different in this respect from the rest of the world.
reward teams for opening up their style of play...penalizing them for packing it in. that's how I prefer to think of it.
Naaaaah. I like the way MLS is doing it now - a lot. This 14-12-4-2 scoreline just serves to confuse. W-L-T, people know. What's that last # all about? Sparky G brings up a good point.
In hockey, I don't like it because it makes some games worth more than others. OT games that have a goal are worth 3 points. Yeah, I know, soccer is 3-1-0. So sue me. Back to hockey...I know it would never happen, but making some games worth more than others is an invitation to corruption.
The NHL system sucks. A game won in regulation is worth 2 points total. A game tied is worth 2 points total, but a game won in overtime is worth 3 points total. the worst thing is watching divisional rivals play to an overtime game with one of them winning. I wish hockey would go to 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win, 1 point for an overtime loss, and 1 point for a tie. That way, any "won" game is worth 3 total points, while a tie is worth only two. They'll never do it, though.
I'd say no. In the NHL it results in teams playing for the tie when they play within the conference. It only really opens up when the other team getting the extra point doesn't affect potential playoff seedings. In an interconference matchup, getting the extra point is a bonus. Giving it up doesn't matter because you have a point in the bag. Getting it just a bonus. When two teams in the same conference play, the usually play not to give up that extra point. This is especially true at the end of the season. It does also screw up the standings a lot. Carolina lost a lot of overtime games last year and it was the definitely made a difference in getting them into the playoffs, and eventually, the finals.
Yeah. After the 99-00 season when the Canes were eliminated on the last day of the season, coach Paul Maurice said that the problem was that the team "didn't lose enough overtime games." The Canes were the only team not to lose any overtimes that season. It's really perverse, but the net effect is that he was absolutely correct. The team took more chances the last two seasons, winning a few more (free points) while also losing a few more....
I can honestly say I didn't know Hockey gave a point for a regulation tie. But it sounds like a terrible idea to me, so, no.
It should be. The third point for a win, numbers above 11 for starters, and reds for fouls from behind all were "not part of the world's game" either at one time. Occasionally we evolve and consequently progress. The MLS OT is one American additive that has greatly improved the game. For starters, ties are generally unsatisfying. Are you really in that much of a hurry to go home or flip channels? I'll take 10 min. of bonus soccer in most situations. I'll take a game winning goal every time. "Dour" 0-0 draws aside, why not give two strugglers 10 more minutes to determine an issue. Judges rightly demand that juries to do it every day. Soccer certainly is not meant to be played endlessly so ties are necessary, but sports by natyre are designed to seek a separation of one entity from another. As to being a hinderence with TV: That's crap. An OT MLS game still fits just fine within a 2 hrs block. Just start the game a minute or two after the telecast starts instead of listening to talking heads for 5 min. Soccer, like baseball, leaves plenty of time to get the info across. Plus, starting sooner would leave interview/rehash time at the end of non-OT games. To the additional point: Superdave has the correct view of this one. Maybe 2 of 3 points for a post-regulation win is fair (ala Mexican lower divisions). I still think the best system is the current one. For that matter hockey should give 3 points for regulation wins also.
It's not like Carolina was booted for lack of OT losses and was jammed by the scoring system. What the coach should have said was, "We lost too many games in regulation because we were not good enough to deserve the point for getting to OT." to be technically correct. For those who think otherwise a tie counts the same as a loss in OT in the standings - 1 point. Only a win in OT is rewarded. The only complaint a coach might have regarding the scoring system would be if they were in a conference with a preponderence of OT game winners and therefore more available points. His complaint should then still be, "We didn't win enough games to earn full points." To flip back to MLS, KC was considered to be a dog team all year mainly due to the relative early season strength of the West and the August drubbings. The record shows KC to be the MLS leader in ties, only one more loss than MLS' best teams, beaten in OT several times(no points in MLS system), a unprofessionally weak finishing offense, and still they outscored champ LA over 200+ minutes. A two game series puts KC through. Gansler didn't whine about the scoring system or that the rest of the world plays a 2-leg. They were beaten, period. So was Carolina, repeatedly.
It's very simple guys Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner, folks! Finally someone who understands the NHL's rules about overtime losses. The OTL is a reward for forcing overtime. It rewards hardworking teams that are behind to get the tie, then go all out in OT to get the win, without fear of getting no points at all. It also punishes leading teams for sitting back playing defensive at the end. If a losing team that came back to tie, then unfortunately loses in OT, they at least get the point for a good hard fought game. Like I said in an earlier post, it's very simple for people who have a sports life outside of soccer, and spend the time to think about it. Heck, most NFL'ers can't figure out what a tie is! It's not a gimmick, it's a way to increase parity without having to change the economics of the league. It helps out the little guys. For the second time, I AM NOT in favor of this in soccer, but I LOVE this in hockey.
I can't agree. If two teams have fought to a standstill for 90 minutes, then so be it. They deserve to split the points, and there's some satisfaction in that. I feel the 5+5 minutes of overtime is superfluous, rather than providing any improvement to a game the doesn't need improving in this area. MLS came a long way in backing away from the "shootout". Now it can come the rest of the way and eliminate overtime altogether.
Leagues should be allowed to experiment, with rules of the game itself, and with "regulations" such as points for wins/ties/goals-scored, overtime formats, playoff formats, and the such. Give rules an honest chance. If they don't work, then fine, get rid of them (for example, the 35-yard offside rule in NASL, or kick-ins or two-ref systems more recently). But don't reject something just because the rest of the world does/doesn't do it. Let Fifa/Uefa/Conmebol control the "big picture" aspects of the game, but let the leagues try things out for themselves.