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]