Should the NHL Change the Points System?

With the noticeable rise in extra time games as discussed in a recent article here, more and more teams are staying competitive in the standings due to these extra points rewarded for losing in extra time despite winning less than half of their games. Similarly, many teams are winning a good portion of their games through either 3-on-3 overtime hockey, or the shootout. Although extra time wins are valued less than regulation wins through the tie breaker system, with regulation wins being the first tie breaker in the standings and regulation & overtime wins (in other words non-shootout wins) being the second tie breaker, there has still been a rising discussion in adjusting the points system to one that rewards teams who win in regulation. There already exists a 3-2-1-0 point system in other international leagues, and is also the point system commonly used during the World Juniors and Olympics under IIHF rules. This is the system where teams earn three points for a regulation win, two points for an extra time win, one point for an extra time loss, and zero points for a regulation loss. This system rewards teams that earn their points through regulation wins as opposed to extra time wins, where both 3-on-3 overtime and shootouts don’t even exist in the playoffs, which by association makes regulation wins the most valuable. So should the NHL consider adopting this system, and would it change much?

Let’s first look at the standings of the current season as of all games ending on November 11, 2025. While there isn’t much use in diving too deep while the season is still so young and while there are a whopping nine teams tied with 18 points, and only three points currently separating 28th place and ninth place, the teams currently at the top would not be impacted much by the IIHF points system. The Avalanche, Ducks, and Devils would all remain as the top three teams. The Boston Bruins who have just seven regulation wins out of their 11 would still only drop down one spot from seventh to eighth. While analyzing the current standings under an IIHF points system may have more value later in the season when more games are played and teams are more spread out, we can instead look historically at completed seasons to see if changing the points system would have made a difference in terms of volatile standings changes.

For this analysis, all of the completed seasons in the salary cap era will be taken into account to analyze how an IIHF points system would have changed the standings and the playoff picture. This analysis will exclude the three shortened season of 2013, 2019-2020, and 2021 because they either lacked inter-conference play, or in the case of 2019-2020, the season came to an abrupt end and the post-season had an extended 24-team format, which makes analyzing standings changes and playoff team changes under different point systems unreliable.

In the 17 seasons analyzed, there are a total of 520 different teams. Of these 520 teams, 299 would have changed ranks in the league standings (57.5% of teams would have moved at least one spot in the league standings), 191 teams would have changed ranks in the conference standings (36.7% of teams would have moved at least one spot in the conference standings), and only 88 teams would have changed ranks in the divisional standings (16.9% of teams would have moved at least one spot in the division standings). Of course, this drop makes sense given that the difference between teams in the standings increases as the scope becomes narrower. The 2014-2015 Los Angeles Kings were the biggest victims of the NHL points system, as only three out of their 40 wins were in extra time, and they would have been six spots in the league standings higher under an IIHF system. They would have qualified for the playoffs instead of the Calgary Flames, and would have had the chance to defend their title as the 2014 Stanley Cup Champions. The 2009-2010 Bruins, 2007-2008 Oilers, and 2007-2008 Rangers all fell the most (five ranks) and benefited from being in the NHL points system.

There were a few teams tied as the most victimized at the conference level, with some overlap with the league rankings. The 2017-2018 Panthers, 2007-2008 Senators, and 2006-2007 Canadiens were all four spots lower in the conference under the NHL points system compared to the IIHF points system. The Panthers and Canadiens both would have been playoff teams in a 3-2-1-0 points system, with the 2017-2018 Panthers being the most recent victim of this in the NHL. Both of the previously mentioned 2007-2008 Oilers and 2007-2008 Rangers benefited the most on the conference level, being three spots better than what they would have been under IIHF rules. However, this isn’t too significant since the Oilers missed the playoffs regardless, and the Rangers still would have been a playoff team regardless, just an 8th seed instead of a 5th seed.

However, from the lens of drops in the league and conference ranks, these differences mainly only impact potential home-ice advantage changes, or potential draft lottery position changes among teams at the bottom of the standings. The most important aspect of this entire discussion is if it results in playoff teams that are less deserving than other teams that missed the playoffs who would have made it under the IIHF points system.

Of the 520 teams, only 18 (3.5%) had their playoff status impacted. In other words, nine out of 520 teams missed the playoffs who otherwise would have made the playoffs in an IIHF points system, while nine benefited from the NHL points system and made it to the playoffs, but would have missed the playoffs under an IIHF points system. As mentioned, the 2017-2018 Florida Panthers are the most recent team to be victimized by the NHL points system, as they would have qualified for the playoffs over the Columbus Blue Jackets in an IIHF system.

Each team who would have become a playoff team or would have dropped out of the playoffs if the NHL system was replaced by the IIHF system, with each pair together and the real playoff team on the left

Another point is that even among the very small amount of teams impacted by this, they are almost exclusively the 7th or 8th seeded teams, or the wild card teams. The 2006 Edmonton Oilers were one game away from winning the Stanley Cup despite finishing 8th in the Western Conference. Under the IIHF points system, the Oilers would have missed the playoffs and been replaced by the Vancouver Canucks. This is the only instance of a team who made the playoffs under the NHL system that wouldn’t have made it under an IIHF system that went to the Stanley Cup Finals. The 2009-2010 Montreal Canadiens are the only other team in this scenario that went to the conference finals; all other teams lost in the first or second round.

So does this mean that ultimately this is made out to be a much bigger deal than it is? The answer is both yes and no. While the impact this has on the standings and which teams make it to the playoffs is surprisingly minimal, the protest for a different system has merit for a different reason, that is the strategies of the game, especially in the third period. This ties into the recent article about the rise in overtime games, but teams are now seemingly playing much more conservatively in close games in order to secure at least one point. This is partially proven by some of the “bizarre” looking records, where numerous teams have almost as many, or sometimes more extra time losses than regulation losses. The 11-1-5 Avalanche, 8-5-4 Kings, 8-5-4 Senators, 7-4-5 Kraken, 7-4-4 Golden Knights, 7-6-4 Oilers, and 5-6-4 Sabres are all records that put on display just how much overtime there has been so far this season. As exciting as 3-on-3 overtime is, there is also something to be said about the lack of excitement in the third period of some games prior to the overtime, and that maybe under a different points system that prioritizes regulation wins, we would see different strategies and more exciting hockey in tight games during the third period.

However, overall this is not a pressing issue, and the NHL should first prioritize blatant rules that are impacting the quality of the game, with arguably the most disliked and outdated rule being the trapezoid.