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.

  • SatouKazuma@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

      • SatouKazuma@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
        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.