Revisiting OTLs

In the NHL, I have been openly critical of the point for an overtime loss from the very beginning. I have written about how I view this as an unfair concept. I also vented about the league keeping the rule when they eliminated the reasoning they gave for this awful rule. Throughout all of this, I don't think I have ever mentioned the implications for the entertainment value of the sport.

The rule was supposedly created to reduce ties by encouraging teams to play for a win. Then they eliminated the possibility of ties by introducing gimmicky shootouts. If I watched games, I wasn't about to turn them off that close to knowing how they would be recorded in the standings. Shootouts were never as good as actual hockey, but I still watched.

After years of defending the shootout, the league reluctantly admitted that too many games were being decided in that manner. They switched to 4-on-4 overtime. Then they took that even further by moving overtime to a 3-on-3 format.

Initially, I watched this new format. Unfortunately, I just didn't find it entertaining. Although this approach increases scoring, it's for the wrong reasons. Mistakes are amplified so much that there appears to be an increased sense of caution. In all honesty, 3-on-3 overtime might be harder to watch than shootouts.

It's one thing to sit through a shootout at the end of a game. It's something else to sit through five minutes of 3-on-3 play followed by a shootout. Because of the new overtime format, I no longer watch regular season games beyond regulation.

With the point for an overtime loss, the winning team receives two points, and the losing team receives one. That makes these games worth a total of three points. Regulation games reward winners with two points and losers with none. That makes these games worth two points. Simply put, games are worth 50% more if teams win with a gimmick than if they decide the outcome by playing hockey. This provides a serious incentive for teams to take games to overtime.

Personally, I prefer that all games are worth the same. If we really want to have some games worth three points and others worth two, I would much rather reverse it. Award three points if results come from hockey games. Cut it to two points if they must resort to a corny gimmick. I would much rather see that than punish teams for deciding outcomes from the hockey portion of games. Better yet, restore ties, play actual hockey during the five-minute overtime, and make all games worth the same