2024 NHL: Adjusting The Points for Standings and Regular Season Overtime

So several months ago, we did have some discussion in a thread, and I figured to simply start a new thread on this matter so as to hear ideas.

Perhaps you are not happy with the current NHL format for points in standings and overtime rules in the regular season?

If you are happy with the status quo, great, and this thread might not be for you.

I’ll start with these recommendations for changes in the regular season.

Regulation Win = 3 Points
Overtime Win = 2 Points
Shootout Win = 1 Point
ANY Loss = 0 Points

Changes In Overtime Rules for the Regular Season Only

Go back to 4 on 4, but once the puck that has been last in possession of Team A crosses the centre/red line, it cannot go back unless touched by a player of Team B.

First Offence:
Treated the same as icing, faceoff in Team A’s end.

Second and Subsequent Offences:
2-Minute Minor Penalty for Team A plus same treatment as icing

I feel these changes will encourage a better overtime period with more aggressive play, especially when teams stand gain more points in regulation, less if going to a shootout win, and absolutely no more loser points for a loss.


This has been oft discussed, pretty much anywhere it is possible to do so for many, many years … if the NHL had ANY interest in changing, it would have done so by now


The over and back wouldn’t work although there’s an opportunity to adjust for points.

Or just go to a percentage in terms of wins and losses.

Why wouldn’t it work?

Of course to be clear the puck could be passed also back, but quite simply not back over the red line once it has crossed it.

Any touch by the defence re-sets play of course, as does any re-capture by the offence.

The 3 on 3 is enough of gimmick as it is along with a shootout.

Let’s not over complicate the process.

10 mins of 3 on 3 (will settle for a 20 min period) and for the officials to take their whistles out of their pockets would also be helpful.

Ah phooey on this idea because it sounds like the gimmicky status quo.

Anyway I could go with using winning percentage so long as an overtime win does not count the same as a regulation win, but I figured it’s simpler just to use the point system.

Most of all I don’t like that there is ANY reward for a loss.


Although the NFL before 1972 never calculated ties in the standings (ties are rear in football).

Was always curious what it look like if the NHL used that system.

1 Like

What I find more and more gimmicky is overtime and the shootout.
Time to dump them and go back to the simple 2 for a win, 1 for a tie points system.

If they keep OT and shootout, It should be 2 for a regulation win and 1 for OT/Shootout and no loser point.

Because the emphasis should be on winning in regulation…

1 Like

I would prefer the tie only after a 20 min extra period of sudden death (4 on 4).

Simply as you stated 2 points for a win and 1 point for a tie.


Because there were teams that appeared to manipulate that third point thing down the stretch run to the playoffs.

Just think if an elite team, sat on ties every time they played a weaker team and won in overtime - sure wouldn’t be hard to win the presidents trophy…

1 Like

I agree 100% on that statement period!


I think this is much ado about nothing.

We are talking about a few regular season games. This isn’t an issue for playoff games. Imagine being a soccer fan (I’m not) and having a skills competition decide your biggest championships?

No matter what side you are on in this debate, there is no perfect regular season solution. Many people, including myself, don’t much like ties. It’s a sporting competition, not an everyone gets a participation ribbon type of competition.

I’m pretty sure that no one likes a shootout, but there has to be a winner declared somehow. In the meantime, 3 on 3 OT is about as exciting as it can get. Usually nothing but end to end rushes and 2 on 1’s and great chance after great chance. Certainly going to 3 on 3 greatly reduced the amount of shoot outs. And once again, playoff games aren’t subject to this.

I don’t see any change on the horizon nor do I think there should be. There are many other options, none of which I see as clearly better. Messing with the points and starting to award 3 for a win will mess with all time records even more than the loser point did. There will never be more than a 5 minute OT. The owners pushed for that and initially wanted 10 then 8 then even 7. The NHLPA nixed all of those and will continue to do so. After all, it is unreasonable to ask world class athletes that make millions for seven months of work to play an extra couple of minutes 2-3 times per season. :face_with_monocle:

In my opinion no alternate solution or system is any better. They all have their weaknesses. I’m ok with what we presently have as long as the NHL doesn’t get soccer fever and compromise competitive integrity in the playoffs.

1 Like

Nothing here of interest, or improvement.

  2. Return to the original (pre-WW2) 10 minutes of overtime. But sudden death and with 3 on 3.
  4. 2 points for a win, 1 for tie after overtime, and that’s the way it should be … always. No loser points for a tie in regulation time.
1 Like
  1. Yes
  2. No, this is simply worse than already.
  3. Yes
  4. No, too many teams will play for that single point late in overtime much as in the past.
  5. Yes

The only idea you offer that is better is eliminating the shootout, but that’s not happening.

The status quo already sucks, so it looks like you have nothing new or better to add anyway.

And your ideas offer nothing other than eliminating the shootout, which is not happening even though it sucks.

When the status quo is not great, I don’t believe such arguments in its favour as you make here.

There has to be a better way.

There might be, but I haven’t read it in this thread or anywhere else yet. The current way isn’t perfect of course, but I don’t think any suggestion I have read so far is better. I personally think a longer OT period would be good, but that is a pipe dream and will never happen as I pointed out as the NHLPA will never allow it so that is 100% off the table. The solution has to be one that has a chance to be implemented and extending the time has zero chance of being implemented.

1 Like

I too am against added time. There’s enough time at hand already when all the games that go to overtime even last over three hours of TV time now.

Note for clarification that others have offered ideas adding time for play, but the ideas I put out involve no added time for play than already at hand.

The ideas I shared involve only changes to the points for wins and losses, 4-on-4 overtime, and a change in the rules to discourage teams from heavily defensive play in overtime.

1 Like

I find 3 on 3 much more exciting than 4 on 4 and there will be far fewer games decided in OT if it is 4 on 4 so opposed. I’m also against messing with the point structure.

Let’s not forget that the NHL gets it right in the playoffs like most sports do with the notable exceptions of soccer and football. We are only talking about regular season so I don’t see this issue as fundamental.