Standings SHOULD be different!

i hate the point system, especially since there are by-weeks. a team can have more points, but only cuz they played more games.

*** this week, if sask. wins, they will be 2-1 with 4 points and in a 4-way tie...yet they will have the best winning percentage in the west and should be in 1st....u see what i mean?

i think standings should have winning percentage instead of points.
example:

WEST....................................................EAST:

Saskatchewan 2-1(.666 ).................Montreal 3-0( 1.00 )
Edmonton 2-2(.500 )........................Winnipeg 3-1(.750 )
B.C. 2-2(.500 ).................................Toronto 1-3(.250 )
Calgary 2-2(.500 )............................Hamilton 0-4(.000 )

which do u like best?

who cares..at the end of the season its the wins that matter

Not a bad idea, drumkit, but at the end of the season it all works out the same anyway.

i do....i think the point system shows the standings incorrectly.

not at the end of the year..i think ur looking at it this way in the middle of the season, becasue some teams have played fewer games than others and what not

doesnt matter to me..the only time the standings are ever meainingful is at the end of the season..befreo that, u just go by wims and losses

i am lookin at it from during the season...which is how everyone looks at the standings thu 20 weeks!

during the season is the only time standings mean anything, cuz once playoffs begin, standings mean nothing.

so the only time standings mean something, they are done incorrectly and inaccuratly, IMO.

Who really cares if you like winning percentage look at winning percenatge. I'm sure you're smart enough to figure it out on your own. I can't stand it when people are asking about tie breakers in the first half of the year either

at the end of the year when everyone has 18 games played points and winning percentage will put the same standngs

I personally like the point system better, the tie-breakers dont really matter until the end of the season.

maybe you can use this as a tie breacker at the end of the season.

I'd rather have the OT lose point back, with an OT win points, like this...

3 points for a win
2 points for a tie
2 points for an OT win
1 point for a OT loss
o for a loss.

I think it is perfect the way it is now.

We don't need to change the system.. it's easy to figure out who's on top when one team is 3-1 and the others are 2-2 or 1-2. Right? In any case, what's wrong with a temporary tie if it was to occur? I think it makes things more interesting when you can say "Look how even the West is this year.. they're ALL in first!"

Why should you care if you are only tied for first when you have played one game less than the team you are tied with?

It doesn't matter where you rank in the standing until week 20 is over. By then, every team will have played the same number of games.

Look at BC last season, They were first all year long, and almost lost their top spot on the last week of the regular season. Had that happened, it would have meant nothing to have been first all summer long.

I really don't mind if the Als are tied for first with a 1.00 percentage with the Bombers who have .750

If we want to hold first place alone, we'll have to beat these Bombers this week. That's all.

Oh great....Commisioner Kanga is back with more changes again.... :roll:

If you are going to make any changes it should be to a balanced schedule. All team play 18 games but they dont play the same teams.

I'd like to see 3 match ups against each divisional rival and 2 against each team in the other divison. This would mean only 17 games

that's been around since last season. :roll:

Im sorry I told you about it

why? been the best idea you have given me, from we you were nice to everyone.

and yet you still manage to get it wrong!