I Hate Mondays: What’s the Point?

Since the new NHL has returned, I haven't heard anything but praise and plaudits for the changed game.

That's great, but it still doesn't alter my typically sour Monday mood.

I want to know why NHL teams get a point for an overtime loss. The winning team is awarded two points, a regulation loss nets nothing but an overtime loss is good for one point. If some people still don't take the NHL seriously, it is because of rules like this.

Let me get this straight: two teams have sweated it out through three periods of hockey and the game is still deadlocked, so you award them a point. Hmm ... where else have I seen this?

Oh, yeah — nowhere.

The National Basketball Association doesn't reward teams who are tied after regulation. Can you imagine Bud Selig trying to explain Major League Baseball's decision to add the "overtime loss" column to every team's record and present half a win for team's who play in extra innings?

What kind of achievement is that?

Maybe I was mistaken, but I thought the goal of sports was to pit two teams against each other and determine a winner and a loser.

At some point or another, likely at its origin, this rule may have made sense.

Prior to the days of the shootout, there were just wins, losses and ties.

The NHL wanted to decrease the number of games that ended as ties and increase the number of games that resulted as wins or losses, so it granted every overtime participant one point and placed another one up for grabs. Teams playing in the extra frame did not need to worry about playing for a tie and more teams started to play more dangerously with, essentially, nothing to lose and everything to win.

Fast-forward to the present day, where every game that is still tied after a short overtime period heads to a three-man shootout, and you see that there is no need for this rule.

There are no more ties in the NHL, so what is the purpose of an overtime loss?

Every time someone who is not fully familiar with hockey asks me about that third column, my explanation is clear, but the purpose of it is never comprehendible.

It almost looks as if subsisting until the overtime period is accomplishment of some sort when in reality, it isn't. Do coaches at the minor-league level pat their players on the back when they've made it to overtime?

"Hey, good job guys, you made it to overtime. Enjoy this one."

Or maybe this is a seed that should be planted in future NHLers at a very young age.

"Listen son, remember to keep your stick on the ice, remember to keep your head up and remember that losing in overtime is half as good as winning."

Overtime is just more time. It's not a bonus round, it's not a feat. It is merely added time to determine a victor.

To be honest, if you are going to distribute points for making it to bonus time, I don't think it should stop there. Here's my system: dole out points after every period. If you are winning after the first period, that's two points, leading after the second is three points, and if you actually win the game, that's four points. Now if you triumph in the four-on-four overtime segment, that's five points and the shootout is worth six.

Sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it?

So does awarding points for playing in overtime.

Overtime losses and the NHL mix like Mondays and me.

"One of the great dangers in having a career is getting bored." — Itzhak Perlman