|
|
#31
10-18-2007, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: why hockey is dumb
WTF? How does this question need serious responses? This is the worst reason I have ever heard to hate hockey because it comes under some ridiculous premise that the players and coaches are morons for actually wanting to play the game and entertain the fans.
|
|
#32
10-18-2007, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why hockey is dumb
[ QUOTE ]
ok sorry i guess the coaches are just dumb. is there anything in the rules that disallows this? like unsportmanlike conduct or something? [/ QUOTE ] This rule seems to allow quite a bit of judgement on behalf of the officials: http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule83.html I love the fines - $200 to $500 dollars. That's less than the price of tickets in Toronto.
|
|
#33
10-18-2007, 01:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why hockey is dumb
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ok sorry i guess the coaches are just dumb. is there anything in the rules that disallows this? like unsportmanlike conduct or something? [/ QUOTE ] This rule seems to allow quite a bit of judgement on behalf of the officials: http://www.nhl.com/rules/rule83.html I love the fines - $200 to $500 dollars. That's less than the price of tickets in Toronto. [/ QUOTE ] That rule probably hasn't been updated since like 1900, the last time someone actually thought this retarded idea was genius.
|
|
#34
10-18-2007, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why hockey is dumb
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Any of the following systems would be fine. 3 for reg win 2 for ot/so win 1 for ot/so loss 0 for reg loss 2 for a win 1 for a tie. No OT Just keep tracks of wins and losses. [/ QUOTE ] I agree pudge, but on the 3-2-1 scenerio I'd rather see 2-2-0. 2 for reg win, 2 for OT win, 0 for any loss. I don't like that a loss is rewarded with anything. All things considered, though, I'd like to see OT scrapped and tied games stay tied. I'm old school on this. [/ QUOTE ] Under your system(the way it used to be) the last few minutes of regulation and all of OT would be boring as hell as no team wants to risk losing their one point...having a guaranteed point means that they have nothing to lose and will take many more chances...makes the game 10x better for the fans.
|
|
#35
10-18-2007, 01:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why hockey is dumb
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Any of the following systems would be fine. 3 for reg win 2 for ot/so win 1 for ot/so loss 0 for reg loss 2 for a win 1 for a tie. No OT Just keep tracks of wins and losses. [/ QUOTE ] I agree pudge, but on the 3-2-1 scenerio I'd rather see 2-2-0. 2 for reg win, 2 for OT win, 0 for any loss. I don't like that a loss is rewarded with anything. All things considered, though, I'd like to see OT scrapped and tied games stay tied. I'm old school on this. [/ QUOTE ] Under your system(the way it used to be) the last few minutes of regulation and all of OT would be boring as hell as no team wants to risk losing their one point...having a guaranteed point means that they have nothing to lose and will take many more chances...makes the game 10x better for the fans. [/ QUOTE ] +1 the old OT was terrible. it was like that simpsons bit on soccer - 'center, back to halfback, passes to center, back to wing, back to center'.
|
|
#36
10-18-2007, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why hockey is dumb
There are obviously numerous -EV reasons why OP's idea doesn't work. First off it's a disadvantage to the better team. Second it obviously makes no sense in divisional games (and there are 32 of those). Lastly giving that free point to the other guy can come back to haunt you later in the year, when home ice for the cup is still decided by overall points. Bottom line it'll never make sense to do this, UNLESS both teams need exactly one point to make the playoffs in the final game, and happen to be in opposite conferences. But those games are never scheduled for the end, so it wouldn't make sense.
|
|
#38
10-18-2007, 01:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why hockey is dumb
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score.
|
|
#39
10-18-2007, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why hockey is dumb
[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score. [/ QUOTE ] This is just a modified prisoners dilemma problem and it's pretty easy to see why it's best to choose to defect.
|
|
#40
10-18-2007, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: why hockey is dumb
[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow the NHL at all but I don't get the hate for the OP if that's actually how it works. It makes sense to play for the tie unless you have a certain % chance of beating the opponent in regulation. Collusion wouldn't really be necessary cause you could just play a defensive game and never try to score. [/ QUOTE ] The main point is that professional sports are played first and foremost for entertainment of their fans. You bore them to death, you have no fans, and your sport doesn't exist. If hockey was 0-0 for 60 minutes every night with no offensive action, absolutely no one would watch.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
