One Weird Trick Gets Seattle Kraken To 90 Standings Points!

3... 2... 1...

This number sequence isn't just for NASA launches or angry parents. It's a concept hashed around by NHL thinkers who believe revision is needed in how standings points are awarded.

Right now, a winning team earns two points, whether achieved in 60 minutes or beyond. Tinkerers would prefer a system which provides a greater reward for winning in regulation.

Under a 3-2-1 arrangement, regulation wins would be worth 3 points. Victory via overtime or shootout would garner 2 points, with the losing side still awarded 1 point for making it that far.

As Mr. Drill tweeted below, 3-2-1 math would increase the Seattle Kraken total to 90 standings points.

Admittedly, it wouldn't do them much good, since they'd need 107 points to draw even with the Vegas Golden Knights.

What brought this all to mind is the rules changes discussed at the NHL general manager meetings this week in Florida.

The new women's pro league, the PWHL, uses the 3-2-1 system. So do Swedish leagues, Russia's KHL, and European soccer.

Advocates like Pierre LeBrun in the Athletic point out , "Either a 3-2-1 points system or going back to the original 2-0 (two points for any win, zero points for any loss), is the way to go if you want to really reflect and measure the performance of teams over 82 games."

Proponents also point to the imbalance of two points at stake in regulation, but "3-point games" from overtime onward.

Devil's advocate: is this a solution in search of a problem? Supposedly, the extra standings point would motivate teams to play hard at the end of the 3rd period, rather than stalling to reach overtime. But has that actually been a problem?

Also, how much harder would teams press for a winning goal? Late over-aggressiveness can just as easily lead to a regulation loss.

Others take LeBrun's argument and turn it on its head. Good teams might pile up so many 3-point wins that not so good teams would be out of the hunt by Valentine's Day, or maybe even New Year's Day.

Neutral observers might point out that no matter how points are awarded, some teams are inevitably going to unfairly benefit, while others are unfairly punished.

Think how a balanced schedule didn't work, but an unbalanced schedule worked to the advantage of weaker divisions. Similarly, conference seeding for playoff matchups caused scheduling headaches, but divisional seeding sometimes forces two powerhouses to meet in the first round.

Lastly, when considering the 3-2-1 point system, consider how many times the rules for NHL overtimes have already changed or been altered.

• 1921: 5-on-5, 20 minute, sudden-death OT
• 1927: Overtime shortened to 10 minutes
• 1928: Sudden death eliminated, score final after 10 minute OT
• 1942: Overtime discontinued
• 1983: 5-on-5, 5 minute, sudden-death OT; ties allowed
• 1999: OT becomes 4-on-4; 1 point for OT loser
• 2005: Shootout introduced; ties eliminated
• 2015: OT becomes 3-on-3

Note: Overtime rules were unchanged between the above time periods, except where noted.