Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 25 Feb 1994 02:50:40 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I'm puzzled by how readily the idea of 2 points for the winner and 1 for the
loser in overtime games (either in the usual case of a goal scored or from a
shootout) is being endorsed.
It seems that there are inherent inequities in such a system. One can
construct various examples. Consider an evenly balanced 4-team league, each
team playing the others twice. All season series are split, and all games end
in regulation time except for the two between teams 3 and 4. Under current
rules, all teams have 6 points. Under the proposed change, teams 1 and 2 each
have 6 points and 3 and 4 each have 7. Why should teams 3 and 4 finish ahead
of 1 and 2 simply by virtue of going into overtime against each other in their
pair of games?
Or, in a larger league, say teams A, B, and C are tied in the standings with
n points. A loses to some other team; B and C play each other in a game that
goes to overtime, with B winning. Under the current system, A and C hold at n
points with B increasing to n+2. Under the alternative, C increases to n+1,
and both B and C have gained on A. Why should A be penalized for not going
into overtime. What if this occurs on the final day of the regular season and
these are the 3 teams on the bubble for making the playoffs, with 2 of the 3
qualifying. Why should C get in over A. Perhaps one could argue that, in a
balanced schedule, opportunities for overtime play are equal over the course of
a season, but I don't think that this is a very satisfying line of reasoning.
A return to 10-minute overtimes has some appeal. But a tie is a perfectly good
outcome to an evenly matched game, and 1 point a logical reward.
Chuck Henderson [log in to unmask]
|
|
|