> 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. | +----------------------------+----------------------------------------+