Hockey fans everywhere are always complaining about the three point game and the effect it has on the standings.  In theory the three point game doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Some games only two points are awarded and in others three points are awarded  and to many this seems unfair.

It's interesting to take a look at how the standings would look without the extra point being awarded.  The eight playoff teams would remain the same but there would be some shuffling of the seeds.  Of course this is all hypothetical because teams may have a different strategy if they knew they wouldn't earn a point for losing.

If Sabres fans had any thoughts that the extra point was hurting their chances of making the playoffs, think again.  In fact the three point game has been to the benefit of the Sabres up until this point in the season.

For a couple of years I have been a proponent of making every game a three point game.  I feel that it's important to reward teams for winning games in regulation as opposed to overtime.  My theory is to award a team that win in regulation three points.  If a game goes to overtime/shootout, the winning team would be awarded two points and the losing team would get one. 

If the standings are reworked this way the Carolina Hurricanes would be the team that was rewarded the most.  Of course the Sabres would still miss the playoffs in this scenario.

The playoff race is extremely tight with only a couple of weeks left in the regular season, it would be even tighter if all games were worth three points.  

In almost every scenario the standings remain almost identical but that doesn't prevent the debate from raging on.  People have made arguments for many different scenarios but the NHL seems content to leave things the way they are.  Despite there being little difference in the standings and doesn't change the fact that it makes very little sense to keep the status quo.