I've been against the current playoff positioning for a few years now. I believe winning your division should be rewarded with home ice in the first round. I don't see why a top 3 spot is necessary. Currently third place teams in both conferences have less points than the fourth place. This seems to punish both the fourth and fifth place teams. We saw last year the NBA changed it's policy after the top 2 teams faced each other in the second round. Hopefully the NHL will follow suit.

I was talking to a friend recently who said they read something about the NHL switching to 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss making "points" meaningless and just win percentage. I think OT should be rewarded and three point games should stay.

I'm pretty sure most people will agree with my position about division winners, but I'm curious to see where people stand on both questions.

I won't give an opinion on the division leaders getting top 3 spots, since my team is in 4th and I'm probably biased. Were the Pens leading their division, my opinion would change.

As far as the point for hitting OT, I think I like it. I hate hitting OT and having your team get NOTHING after an unlucky bounce. Since shoot-outs are probably not going anywhere, it's good to have that point guarranteed. With the complaining already out there about losing a game in a shootout, I could only imagine what we'd hear if a team didn't get anything for their troubles after reaching a shoot-out. I also think having a point in the bag ensures that the 2 teams will go for the win in OT, instead of playing it safe in situations where the 1 point is crucial.

What I don't like about the new points format, is that it kind of taints team records of the past. I constantly hear the Penguin analysts talking about how this Pens team has 90 points, and only (I forget the #) teams in the franchise's history have had 100 points...what they fail to realize is that points were harder to come by back then. Now it's possible to have 3 points split between the 2 teams, not just 2.

I hate the 3 point games. I don't think any loss should be rewarded. Winning is the only thing that should matter. The way the point system is now in the NHL (2 pts for win & 1 pt for OT/SO loss) potentially allows a team with more wins to miss the playoffs or finish below a team with fewer wins (if the team with fewer wins has enough OT/SO losses).

As for the division winners getting the top 3 spots. I don't agree with this either. If one division winner is 7th in the conference that is where they should be placed. They shouldn't eben be rewarded with home ice advantage. The only time winning a division should benefit a team that does not finish in the top 3 in its conference is if that team would miss the playoffs in which case they should be given the 8th seed. In fact, I would like to see the NHL go back to 2 divisions in each conference or just rank the teams from 1 through 8 based on team records and forget about division winners all together only using divisions to determine team scheduling.

I don't agree with rewarding division winners with top 3 places, just a guarantee in the playoffs. Here's an example of why its bad:

2001-2002 Season Standings


2001-2002 Playoffs



Who knows what would've happened had Carolina finished in 7th and not 3rd?

Looks like I'm the only one who believe that Division winners should be awarded top three. Because of the unbalanced schdule I believe that a team that is in a tough division and balanced division should not be at a disadvantage to a team that has a couple of good teams then a bunch of donk teams that they can rack point up against. Take a look at Nashville and Detroit this year, Nash 20-7-4 and Det 18-4-3 against there own division, What would there records be like in a strong division? If there were a balanced schedule's say no way to top seeds for division winners but as long as the schedule is not balanced then the winner should be a top three.