> > Ack!  Just say NO to non-zero-sum point systems.  How do you
> > calculate winning percentages when some games are worth two points
> > and others worth three?  And is a team's strength-of-schedule lower
because they
> > because theyplay in a conference with a lot of ties?
> >
> No, you misunderstood the system.  ALL wins get three points and all
> ties get one, no overtime.  The greater reward for a win makes it
> less attractive to play for a tie which is what necessitated regular
> season overtime originally.
>
> Arthur Berman
> North Vancouver, BC

No, I think he did understand the system.  If a team wins, a game is
worth three points.  If the teams tie, it's worth two.  So some games
are worth more than others.

I also think it's not true that ties are the result of teams trying
playing for a tie.  Sometimes they're the result of two teams who are
just flat out equal on a given night.  Sometimes it's the result of
great goaltending.  When I watch a game like that, I feel like I got my
money's worth.  In fact sometimes I'd go so far as to say that a tie is
absolutely the RIGHT result.

I think the current system is about as far as I'm willing to go.  The
one additional change I'm willing to tolerate is the 4x4.  That rewards
open ice players and skaters without taking entire skill sets out of
the game,  and that's fine with me.  And having sat through the
BU-St.Lawrence game live, and watched the Stanley Cup end on a
controversial goal at 1:00 in the morning, there's no way I can think
that "play till you win" is a good idea.

Shootouts are an abomination.  Deciding the Olympics on a shootout was
an absolute travesty, one of the worst mockeries ever of what was, to
that point, a wonderful tourmanment.

Clay





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com