Over at the University of Guelph in Ontario, a professor has been crunching the numbers to confirm what plenty of people might have already suspected -- that while the introduction of the extra standings point in OT has led to more exciting OT periods, it's also led teams to play more conservatively in the second and third periods:
"The rule change has been successful because now there is a goal scored to break the tie in about 50 per cent of overtime games compared with 25 per cent under the old rule," said Weersink.At the same time, the rule change has created more of an incentive to go into overtime, which means there's less incentive to win during a regular game, he said.
"Some teams on certain nights will play for a tie and then go for it in overtime because they are guaranteed a point if they go into overtime. This has resulted in less aggressive offence during the regular games. Changing the rules has changed the incentives and changed the way the game is played."
Since the rule change, the number of games going into overtime has increased from 20 to 25 per cent and the spread in the score between teams after the second and third period has become narrower, he said.
Color me unsurprised. What we have here is a case where late in the third period, teams now have an incentive to eschew attacking hockey in order to guarantee each team a standings point. With the "co-opetition" segment of the evening out of the way, then teams can get to business fighting over that extra standings point -- one that is now always awarded thanks to the introduction of the shootout before the 2005-06 NHL season.
To rectify the situation, Guelph's Prof. Alfons Weersink proposes adding a wrinkle from international Soccer: Instead of the current system, why not award three points for a win, and only one point for a tie?
On the face of things, that sounds like a reasonable solution, and one that I would favor. In any sport, we should be rewarding athletes and teams who are more talented and are willing to take risks. If you give teams the correct incentive, than you might just unlock the key to the sort of game so many of us claim to be looking for.
You know, if Canada’s professors spent more time studying hockey and less time on useless topics like natural resource production, the Loonie could return to where it belongs.