WRT to the 3 point NHL games, I ready an article that claimed only 1 of the 16 playoff teams wouldn't make the playoffs if they went to a 3-2-1-0 point system. Though this obviously wouldn't account for the fact that less games would go to overtime.

The whole point of the guaranteed point was to encourage teams to open up more offensively in overtime. Now instead of 5 minutes of boring OT we are treated to 20 mins of a boring 3rd period.

As it stands now Calgary is 3 points of a playoff spot with 5 games left. However they need to overtake 3 of the 5 teams ahead of them. Problem is all these teams are playing each other and going to shoot outs. Even winning a game they only gain 1 point.

Also another point on teams "opening up during OT because of the guaranteed point"

Well NOW that we have shootouts that rules how open a team will be during OT since teams know the game will end with a winner or loser anyway. Meaning if you know you are good at shootouts you should want OT to be scoreless and vice versa. The guaranteed point doesn't even make OT any more or less exciting anymore, it just makes teams WANT to go to OT. The guaranteed point was dumb without the shootout, with it, it is so dumb I can't even generate an analogy for it.

Quidditch:

Catching the golden Snitch shouldn't end the game and be worth 150 points. Maybe 30 or so?

Chess:

This is insanely minor, and I don't think it has ever come up in any game I have played and probably never will, but. I think if you want to castle, and an enemy piece is interposing between your king and rook on the precise square that your king would land after the castling, then you should be allowed to castle and capture that piece. This is course provided the piece is a bishop or knight, because if it was a Queen or Rook, you'd be castling out of check. I only advocate the rule change because it is more logically consistent with the rules of the game that not allowing it. I suspect it would be allowed had anyone ever thought of it.

30 is way too low.

does it still end the game?

Are you saying catch the Snitch shouldn't end the game as well?

im sure this has been said

college basketball - they need to lower shot clock to atleast 30 imo

Didn't someone write an article a while ago about how horrible a game Quiddich was because of the snitch thing. They used an analogy that because it was worth so much and ended the game it would be akin to having the Colts and Pats play but having Peyton and Brady arm wrestle at midfield with the winner getting 56 points and ending the game.

There shouldn't be some action that automatically ends the game in any sport. You play for a fixed period of time or innings or frames or rounds or sets or whatever, there should be a "oh game instantly ends now" action short of one team quitting and forfeitting. Sure there is sudden death in some sports, but that only comes as the result of the game being tied after regulation. Boxing and MMA has knockouts but that's more due to your opponent being unable to physically continue safely.

Catching the snitch should be valuable, but not worth like 15 goals and if caught they should just release another one. This would make having a world class seeker still highly important, as catching a few would almost certainly mean victory, but one lucky snitch catch shouldn't totally wipe out the other team completely dominating.

Plus what if your team was down >150 points, at that point you wouldn't want to catch it, because if you did you'd instantly lose.

This is what happens when you let a woman make up the rules for a sport IMO.

It's almost as if the entire sport was just a magically macguffin designed to let one character be important.

Viktor Krum caught the snitch in the World Cup Final down more than 150 points and he ended up dating Hermoine.

An advanced strategy would be to invest heavily in beaters who harass the opposing seeker with bludgers and lengthen the game

Also you seem to be forgetting that the standings are based on total point differential

Its actually pretty expert. No casualfansortbywins in quidditch and trying to argue for 1. Slytherin due to bad luck when they are in third place

Is that how tennis got its scoring system?

Yeah, let's change the NFL playoffs from division winners to best record so they resemble the NBA and NHL playoffs.

Are you high?

Winning your division means something in the NFL and I love that. It encourages great division rivalries and more meaningful games at the end of the season.

Pittsburgh having to play at Denver last year was awesome.

Some really horrific posts today. Fortunately the Harry Potter discussion saved the day. I know you think I'm trolling, but I'm not.

Interesting thought. Of course in any spot like this where the castling would be otherwise legal, by definition the rook would also be able to just capture the piece safely. And the most likely scenario that would put an enemy piece there (a B/N capturing your B/N on its home square) probably involves the pawn structure on that side already being compromised, making it unattractive for castling anyway.

I think soccer would be a lot more interesting if they used 2 or more balls at once.

I think you would be more interesting if you had 2 or more balls at once.

ZING.

its fortunate that dkgo and tabbaker righted these clowns who thought there were flaws with the quidditch rules.

yes, because the Steelers were led by a rapist and the Broncos were a great underdog story

Pittsburgh was a vastly superior team in the regular season though

division races would still be hotly contested and exciting if the winners were guaranteed playoff spots, its the home games for crappy teams that are the issue

How about when a foul is committed, the team loses a player until the other team scores a FG, similar to Hockey. The player committing the foul waits on the sideline (from center court?) and can re-enter the game immediately when his team throws the ball back into play.

The bolded is absolutely false. If Wild card teams could get the 2nd-4th seeds there would be more meaningful games at the end of the year.

Example:
December 28th, 2008
The Colts and the Steelers both enter the final game of the season with 11-4 records. Pittsburgh has already locked in the #2 seed, Indianapolis is locked in to the #5. This despite the fact that the Colts won at Pittsburgh in week 10.

Instead of having the #2 seed and a bye on the line the last week of the season, both teams play their backups extensively in their respective games.

Something tells me that if the bye was on the line, Peyton Manning would have played more than one series that day.

Interesting idea.. I think the reason it works in hockey is a goal is way more valuable then a basket in basketball.

I would like to see the play continue after a foul until a score, turnover, or the ball goes out of bounds. Just like hockey, don't blow the whistle. If a team commits a second foul, just like hockey, both fouls get called. A team could shoot 4 free throws. If a team scores the 1st foul is void.