>  by Steve Moerland <[log in to unmask]>
 
>   If we are going to go to three points for a win in regular season hockey,
>then you have to have a winner.  If we merely give one point each for a tie
>there is an imbalance in points.  2 points for the game instead of three.
 
Another solution would be to use a four-point system.  This would cover
the three situations described in this thread:
 
    4 - 0 split for a regulation win
    3 - 1 split for an overtime win (or artificially-designated victor)
    2 - 2 split for a draw
 
The ideas promoted as tiebreakers all have similar flaws; they introduce
situations normally brought about by bad play.  Deciding games on
shootouts or mandated power plays negates the efforts of good defensive
(in the first case) or well-disciplined (in the second) teams whose
successes are functions of their abilities to avoid them.
 
I don't understand why draws are considered unacceptable by so many people.
Is it a desire to see someone win, or may it be a desire to see the
other team lose?  Does it demonstrate a lack of patience; an unwillingness
to put a particular night's performance in perspective?  Could it be just
another example of the polarized thinking that seems to dominate these days?
 
 
 +----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
 |  Michael Patrick Bresina   |     America's always had a problem     |
 |  [log in to unmask]  |  with illegal aliens.  Ask any Indian. |
 +----------------------------+----------------------------------------+