NHL standings make no sense

I hate ties in sports. In my days as a youth soccer player, a full game that went by without determining a winner was a painful experience. I mean, you only got to play one game a week, so it was an event. Leaving everything out on the field just to earn a “sister kisser” was just no fun.

But as much as I despise ties, they need to come back in the NHL. Let me explain.

Take the case of the resurgent Phoenix Coyotes, who have played 17 games this season, winning 10 of them and losing 7. They currently have 20 points on the season.

Now take the case of the Coyotes’ division foe, the Dallas Stars. The Stars have also played 17 games and also have 20 points in the standings. But Dallas only has 7 wins in their 17 games, and only 4 losses. So what about the 6 other games?

The Stars have already registered an NHL-high 6 overtime losses, meaning they have earned 6 points in games they’ve lost. The Coyotes have a winning percentage of .588, while the Stars have a winning percentage of .412, yet they’re tied in the standings?

Let’s take it a step further. Theoretically, an NHL team could lose all 82 games they play in overtime or a shootout, and end up with 82 points, which would put that team in a better standing than another team that won 40 of their games, and lost the other 42 all in regulation time. Basically, a team with 40 wins would be looking up the standings at a team with zero wins.

So why does taking longer to lose a game warrant a reward in the NHL? You don’t get consolation points in any other sport, so why the NHL? This seems like a standings system that you’d see in youth sports, where a bigger importance is placed on participation and sportsmanship, and less on winning and losing.

But this is the NHL, a league featuring arguably the toughest athletes in the world.

Make it real easy. First, do away with the shootout. It’s such a rare play in hockey, it’s asinine to determine the winner of a game with it. You don’t see baseball games determined by who can hit the most triples do you? Secondly, extend the overtime period to ten minutes, like the league had prior to World War II. If the game ends in a tie, so be it. If someone wins in the overtime period, they get the two points. If you lose, hey thanks for showing up. I mean, what did you accomplish really anyway? You just took longer to break the hearts of your fans. If nobody scores, you each get a point.

I know the NHL wanted to ensure teams tried to win in overtime when they passed the current set of rules, but isn’t the opposite of that happening?

As former New York Jets coach Herman Edwards famously said, “you play to win the game!”

But if ol’ Herm was an NHL coach he might have said, “you play to extend the game, and not come away empty handed.” Doesn’t seem right, now does it?

Subscribe to your favorite Phoenix team or sport or Follow us on Twitter.