Put on the serious spectacles. The NHL overtime standings system has one major problem that keeps bothering me: it gives a team a point after it loses.
That does not mean there is nothing to like about hockey. Quite the opposite. NHL hockey has something for just about everybody, from speed and skill to physicality, strategy, chaos, and those moments when a game turns into pure madness. If hockey has not clicked for you yet, give it an honest chance. There is plenty there.
But loving a sport does not mean pretending every part of it is perfect. If you claim to like everything about a league, every rule, every format, every administrative decision, then somebody is not doing enough truth telling. A real hockey conversation has room for criticism.
For me, the biggest issue is overtime points. More specifically, it is the automatic consolation point handed to a team that loses after regulation.
Key Takeaways
- The current overtime format gives three total standings points to games that go beyond regulation.
- A losing team receives one point after overtime or a shootout, despite losing the game.
- The loser point can encourage cautious late game play because reaching overtime guarantees a point.
- A two point win and zero point loss model would make every result more accountable.
Table of Contents
- What Is Wrong With the NHL Overtime Standings System?
- Reaching Overtime Is Not the Same as Winning
- The Late Game Stall Problem
- Keep Overtime and Shootouts, Remove the Charity Point
- A 3-2-1-0 Alternative Could Reward Regulation Wins Even More
- Why Standings Accountability Matters
- Hockey Can Be Great and the Rule Can Still Be Bad
What Is Wrong With the NHL Overtime Standings System?
Under the current NHL overtime standings system, a regulation win produces two total standings points. The winner gets two, the loser gets none.
Once the game reaches overtime, however, the math changes. The overtime or shootout winner gets two points, while the losing team receives one point for making it through regulation tied. Suddenly, that one game distributes three standings points instead of two.
That is the phantom third point. It appears simply because neither team finished the job during the first 60 minutes.
Call it an overtime point. Call it a loser point. Call it a participation point with a fancy suit on. The result is still the same: a team loses the game and gets rewarded in the standings.
The NHL officially tracks standings using points, wins, losses, and overtime or shootout losses, which can be reviewed on the league’s NHL standings page. The issue is not that the standings are hard to read. The issue is that the points total can hide the difference between winning games and merely extending them.
Reaching Overtime Is Not the Same as Winning
The defense of the current setup is easy to understand. Two teams battled through regulation tied, so both teams get credit. Fine. But hockey is still supposed to be about winning the contest, not receiving partial credit for avoiding a regulation loss.
A loss at minute 59 is a loss. A loss in three on three overtime is a loss. A loss in a shootout is a loss. The clock and format may be different, but the scoreboard still says one team won and one team did not.
The NHL overtime standings system treats those losses differently, and that difference can become enormous over a full season. A team can build a respectable points total despite not winning enough games outright. Those extra points compress the standings, keep more teams close to a playoff position, and make mediocre records look more competitive than they really are.
That may create drama. It may keep a race looking alive deep into the season. But competitive integrity should matter more than manufacturing a crowded table.
The Late Game Stall Problem
The loser point also changes how teams approach the final minutes of regulation.
When the score is tied late in the third period, both clubs know that simply getting to overtime locks in one standings point. That knowledge can reward cautious hockey. Instead of pushing hard to create a regulation win, a team may protect the tie, protect possession, and wait for overtime.
That is not an accusation that every player or coach is trying to stall. It is just basic incentives. If the rules guarantee something for not losing in regulation, some teams will naturally treat that guarantee as valuable.
A better NHL overtime standings system should reward teams for trying to win the game in regulation, not make the tie itself feel like a successful outcome.
Keep Overtime and Shootouts, Remove the Charity Point
This is not a demand to eliminate overtime. Keep the five minute three on three format. It is exciting, open, fast, and loaded with skill. Keep the shootout too if that is the league’s preferred way to settle a regular-season game.
The issue is not the method used to determine the winner. The issue is the standings reward given to the loser.
The simple fix is straightforward:
- Winner: 2 points
- Loser: 0 points
That version of the NHL overtime standings system makes every game worth two total points, regardless of whether it ends in regulation, overtime, or a shootout. Win the game, get rewarded. Lose the game, take the loss.
No phantom point. No special accounting trick. No standings boost for coming up short.
A 3-2-1-0 Alternative Could Reward Regulation Wins Even More
There is another option if the league wants to go further and make regulation wins more valuable.
A 3-2-1-0 model would work like this:
- Regulation win: 3 points
- Overtime or shootout win: 2 points
- Overtime or shootout loss: 1 point
- Regulation loss: 0 points
Unlike the current format, every game in this model is worth three total points. It avoids the strange situation where regulation games distribute two points while overtime games distribute three.
The 3-2-1-0 approach still gives teams a reason to push for regulation victories. A team that closes the deal before overtime earns more than a team that needs extra time. At least the math is consistent.
Still, if the goal is maximum accountability, the cleanest option remains winner gets two, loser gets zero. The NHL overtime standings system does not need to hand out consolation prizes to create meaningful hockey.
Why Standings Accountability Matters
Standings shape the entire regular season. They determine playoff positioning, influence how front offices evaluate teams, and affect whether a franchise is treated as a contender, a pretender, or a club hanging around the race.
When overtime losses receive points, it becomes easier to confuse proximity with performance. A team may be close in the standings without being especially good at winning hockey games.
That is where the NHL overtime standings system needs a serious rethink. A league should not blur the line between a victory and a defeat just to make the table tighter.
There are larger discussions to have around how hockey continues to change, from competition formats to player safety and the future of the sport. The league’s willingness to evolve will matter, as explored in this look at whether the NHL can adapt to secure its future. Overtime reform belongs in that conversation.
Hockey Can Be Great and the Rule Can Still Be Bad
There is no need to throw the entire sport into a basket, put it in a bag, and toss it across the room because of one rule. Hockey remains one of the best sports going.
But the NHL overtime standings system is not above criticism. Rewarding a team for losing in overtime or a shootout weakens the meaning of the result. It can encourage conservative late game decisions, create uneven point totals between games, and keep teams artificially close in the standings.
Make the rule simple. Win and get points. Lose and do not. That is not radical. That is accountability.
And while the league considers what overtime should look like, player well-being should remain part of the bigger discussion. The case for a different approach is also worth considering in this analysis of removing overtime in the NHL with player health in mind.
FAQ About the NHL Overtime Standings System
How does the NHL overtime standings system work?
A regulation win earns two points and a regulation loss earns zero. If a game goes to overtime or a shootout, the winner gets two points and the losing team gets one point.
Why do overtime games create an extra standings point?
Because the overtime or shootout winner receives two points while the losing team receives one. That makes the game worth three total points, compared with two points for a regulation game.
What is the simplest reform for the NHL overtime standings system?
The simplest reform is awarding two points to the winner and zero to the loser in every game, whether the decision comes in regulation, overtime, or a shootout.
What is a 3-2-1-0 standings format?
It awards three points for a regulation win, two for an overtime or shootout win, one for an overtime or shootout loss, and zero for a regulation loss. Every game is worth three total points under that approach.
Vince Douglas Gregory is the ‘petulant puppet master’ of a sports media landscape addicted to scripted rage and performance art. As the architect of VDG Sports, he bypasses the corporate talking heads to expose the unfiltered truth behind the narratives.
An unstable thinker and astute scholar, Vince thrives on dismantling the mediocre click-bait addicts who trade reality for engagement. If you want boring stats, go elsewhere. If you want the raw reality of the game, you’re in the right place. Consider yourself warned.