As you're quite aware, I carry no decision-making power whatsoever for the conference, but the logic and sensibility of having all games worth three points regardless of how they finish will make more and more sense as you read this. Or, at least, I'm hoping it will because the messes caused by Canada West's rules this season created a nightmare for tie-breaking scenarios while the races they forced teams into shouldn't have existed.
We'll start with the rulebook because it gets confusing if tie-breakers were needed. Here's the section in question.
As you can see, the conference begins by speaking about how points percentage will come into effect if there's a tie among teams who played an uneven number of games, so why isn't points percentage the very first tie-breaking rule among all the teams? The answer can likely be found in the standings where UBC and Alberta both finished with a .700 points percentage despite having wildly different records. Clearly, the two-point system is rewarding Alberta for simply winning when it's pretty clear that UBC should be rewarded for winning in regulation time.
If we move the standings to the three-point system, the UBC Thunderbirds remain at their .700 points percentage with 42 points, but Alberta falls to .633 with 38 points thanks to not winning the same number of games overall or in regulation. Under the current system, Canada West forced UBC into a tie-breaker with Alberta that wouldn't have existed if the three-point system was in place. In fact, Alberta wouldn't have had a chance to catch UBC in the standings at all as UBC would have started the weekend seven points up on Alberta. Because Alberta didn't win as many games as UBC this season, they shouldn't be in a tie-breaker for second-place. See the problem with the two-point system?
Points matter in a points-percentage system when looking at tie-breakers. With there only being nine teams playing a 20-game schedule under the two-point system, the chances of seeing more variation in the standings is reduced since the season isn't long enough to produce enough results where we'd see a lot of separation develop among teams based solely on points percentage. In the three-point system, it works better because there are a greater number of results that can happen within a game to add more variety to the total number of results.
If we're talking about a 32-game season next season (4 games per opposing team), there's more variation available as well so that ties in the standings become harder to achieve. Isn't that what any league wants - clear standings that show what each team has achieved in terms of a record and overall point total?
If we used a three-point system this season, there wouldn't be any changes in the standings from what the final leaderboard showed. Mount Royal would remain atop the standings with 49 points and an .817 points percentage. UBC sits in second-place with 42 points and a .700 points percentage. Alberta finishes with 38 points and a .633 points percentage, slightly ahead of Manitoba at 37 points and a .617 points percentage. See how important the regulation win today over Calgary would have been? Had they won in overtime or via shootout, they would have been tied with Manitoba in the standings and in points percentage. Enter the tie-breakers!
As stated above, if points percentage was moved to the first tie-breaker, regulation wins then become worth more and would outweigh the value of overtime or shootout wins. Wins in regulation, which is tracked by Canada West on the standings page, become relevant again as teams winning in 60 minutes should be rewarded compared to teams needing extra time to defeat an opponent. This would make sense because, from a points-percentage standpoint, teams that win in regulation in a three-point system don't give points away compared to teams that win in overtime.
Perhaps the best argument both for and against the three-point system are swings in the standings. Any team that goes on a long winning or losing streak can find themselves all alone in the standings in a hurry. While that sounds like a negative, the opposite is also true in that there can be wild swings in the standings every weekend depending on wins or losses, so the excitement of a sweep in regulation can produce dramatic results if another team wins twice, but needs extra time for those wins.
Previous seasons using the three-point system didn't produce ties in the standings like this season did, and one may point to that fact as being a good reason why Canada shouldn't change. The argument is that those races keep people engaged in the game thanks to the parity among teams. While that may hold true for some, I'm one of those who struggles to see a ten-win team tied in the standings with a 14-win team. That simply does not compute.
What say you, folks? Are you a three-point enthusiast or is the standard two-point system working for you? The argument has been out there for years for the NHL to switch, but that has yet to happen. And probably never will. Why Canada West switched back was never clearly communicated, but it made no sense for the conference to move off the three-point system that worked so well for so long.
Lemme know if you're a fan of the lay-up or the three-pointer. I know this isn't a basketball blog, but it makes sense to shoot for the win than playing for the tie when it comes to beating the buzzer. Bring back the three-pointer, Canada West. It just makes sense.
Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!
No comments:
Post a Comment