If there’s one thing that truly bugs me about the “new” NHL, it’s the league’s insistence for rewarding losers.
The whole purpose of introducing regular season overtime was to lower the number of tie games. There was a belief that late in a tied game too many teams resorted to a more cautious style, playing to preserve the point rather than going for the win.
The four-on-four, five minute overtime period helped a bit, but there were still too many instances of teams playing for the point even in overtime, so last season we got the introduction of the shootout to determine a winner.
Now I have no problem with the shootout, in fact, I consider it quite exciting, as apparently do the fans whenever the game goes to a shootout.
What I don’t like, however, is that even if a team loses in a shootout or even the overtime period, they’re still getting a point for doing so.
So even though a team will emerge with two points following an overtime or shootout win, the loser still gets a point.
So what, exactly, has the NHL accomplished with this system?
Looking at the standings, it shows columns for wins, losses and overtime losses, which look really no differently than columns for wins, losses and ties.
And there are still instances where it appears overmatched teams are quite happy to “play for the point” late in a game, uncaring if they win in overtime or the shootout.
There’s now talk of revamping the points systems, rewarding teams who win in extra time with two extra points rather than one.
Why not simply reward the team who wins two points, regardless of regulation, overtime or shootout victory, while the team that loses, regardless of when they lose, receive no points?
In other words, the standings should just reflect wins and losses, period. No ties, no point for losing in overtime or the shootout, no extra points.
Win, and you get two points. Lose, you get nothing.
How much of an effect will that have in the standings? It’s obviously too early to tell right now, but over the course of the season it could have a significant impact in determining team placement.
And no team should miss the playoffs because another team had the benefit of more overtime loss points.
If you are going to give both teams points for getting into overtime and/or shootout then teams who win in regulation need to be rewarded more. So give teams that win in regulation 3 points. It makes no sense that when you get to overtime that an extra point becomes available. If anything you should lose points.
This is how I would do it:
I would reward teams who win in regulation or in overtime with 3 points and the losers 0 points. If it then went into a shoot-out, the winner would then get 2 and the loser 1. (If you had to give teams a point just for getting to overtime than it would be the same as a shoot-out, 2 points for winners and 1 for the loser.) The standing would then reflect something of a real pattern of whos doing well and who is not.
I agree with LGB 3 point idea, it makes more sense then the system we have in place right now. The OT/SO point is to reward teams who slug it out till the bitterend and lose after a hardfought game, but more often it's two teams tied in the 3rd who don't want to risk that extra point being lost so play lazily. Too many teams are playing for the OT.
I too prefer the win=2 lose=0 regardless of when the loss takes place. Afterall, when playoff time comes some games turn into 3, 4 or 5 OT marathons. The winners win, the losers lose....there is no "consolation prize" in the playoffs so I don't see why we need one in the regular season.
i too agree with the losers recieving 0 points! I have been mad at this ever since it was put in. I remember the 02-03 season when canucks lost thier division to colorodo by one point. when you look at the colorodo's OT losses, they had 8 and vancouver had 1. As a canucks fan i was pissed.
sensalltheway- I understand your point but in the playoffs you play 5-on-5 in OT and there are no shoot-outs. So then would you revert to the old system of 5-on-5 OT's and get rid of the shoot-out?
Slick50: Excellent example! Now how would you have felt if the Canucks had missed the playoffs by one point because the Avs had more OT points? If you were PO'd about the Canucks missing out on the division crown, imagine how angry you would've been in the other scenario.
I don't see any need to revert. Thomas had said that the extra point was a reward for teams that manage to slug it out through a close game and into OT and a shootout. My only point was in the playoffs they slug it out even longer and harder....but still no reward for the losing team. If I misunderstood you Thomas, apologies for the paraphrasing....
I still stand by my original post....
As a fan....I love the shootout....I know some don't, but personally I do. I'm just not sure I like the way the points are done.
An aside if you'll indulge...it's related to a point. Each division leader is guaranteed a playoff spot, the remaining five go to the next top five teams....I'm wondering if this is entirely fair. If you have a division at some point that is made up entirely of bottom feeders....is the division leader really going to get a spot over vastly superior teams? Not that this is really likely to happen....but it seems unfair for a lesser team to get a spot just because they were the best in a very bad division....
Last edited by sensalltheway354 on November 5th at 5:08 AM.
I think the NHL has it right, partly. I think they just need to reward teams who win in regulation or OT more and only reward the losing team that loses in a shoot-out.
If they didn't reward "losers" then we wouldn't have had the Stanley Cup Finals that we had last year. Edmonton wouldn't have made the playoffs.
Not to mention, it was overtime losses that seperated Buffalo, Carolina and Ottawa in the standings. They do play a good part as well.
Last edited by LetsGoBuffalo on November 5th at 5:44 AM.
your idea for the points would be interesting to try out....maybe I'll keep track privately using your system and at the end of the year compare my standings with the NHL's. Just for fun *grin*
My concern with awarding winners in regulation and OT 3, but winners in shootouts only 2 is that it seems like a punishment for not getting the job done quickly enough. If a team pulls off a win...well shouldn't they get the same points regardless of when they do it? A win is a win....
sens- I believe a win is a win as long as its not a shootout win. Its the same thing with soccer. It wasn't "real" hockey that decided the outcome but a business trying to be more entertaining.
Don't get me wrong I love the shoot-out but if a team wins in regulation and/or overtime than shouldn't that be considered with higher prevelance than a shoot-out win?
If the shoot-out was truly considered an acceptable way to win, don't you think they would implent this into the playoffs?
here's a pretty good conclusion to all of this: i agree, give nothing to a loser in overtime. if you can't finish the job in regulation, don't think that you're gonna get something even if you lose. as the years go by and people start seeing teams who squeeze into the playoffs by the numbers in their OT loss column, maybe this will change. maybe cutting the OT point will force teams to put it all on the line towards the end of the game, upping the intensity and leading to some dramatic plays. if a team was one point out of a playoff spot, knowing that there was no free point coming could light a fire underneath of them. most of the overtime periods this season have looked pretty tame and lame. why not just give everyone a point for showing up with their jersey on straight? and how about a gold star for effort while we're at it?
p.s.- up the shootout to five. no goal, no goal, no goal, no goal, no goal, goal is pretty anti-climactic.
The really ironic part about all of this is that the era that was supposedly the most exciting, golden-age of hockey was a time when there were ties, two-line passes, the larger crease, and the goalies could go behind the net.
One of my biggest complaints about hockey is that the game is different in meaningful ways every single year. They are always changing something. I do think being responsive to the fans is good. I think that some of the post-lockout changes were good (including the shootout), but they are obviously happening too quickly if they always have to be tweaked.
Personally, I liked it just fine when there were ties. I never really understood what the BFD about ties was. The only alternative to pronounce a clear winner is a non-golden goal overtime. Regular season games are necessarily finite in time, especially with the insane schedule these days.
So, there's the shootout. Excellent. But winning or losing in the shootout doesn't have much to do with the ability to win or lose in the real game. It's a whole set of different skills. And if the team can't finish off the other team in the alotted time, maybe it doesn't deserve a net 2 point win either.
Losing in the shootout should stay the way it is, but I can see giving no points for a regular, non-shootout OTL, the way it was before, if that will make everyone happy.
I see no point to a 3-2-1-0 point system - it justs complicates things more and really puts the NHL's integrity further in doubt. This combined with the NHL changing the points structure how many times in the past 10 years. Keep it simple 2 pts for a win - none for a loss. Works for MLB and the NBA - why not the NHL?
Chompsey- What MLB and NBA are you watching? Last time I checked neither league was done on a point basis system.
How would that point system make the NHL lose integrity? Is that you just don't want to do the math involved? Its not complicated at all. Don't mistake integrity with your laziness.
Also trying to bring those other leagues is comparing apples to oranges. They aren't the same. Baseball, when it goes to extra innings, doesn't have a home-run derby decide their game. Basketball, when it goes into overtime, doesn't have a foul-shooting contest to decide the winner.
The point to a 3-2-1-0 system makes it so that when teams go to a shoot-out, no one is rewarded full stop because you didn't really win, or lose, the game. The 3 points puts more added weight to teams that actually win.
LGB-- Nice to read someone who is so passionate about hockey and all its related topics but do you have to be so arrogant to others? Chompsey wrote his opinion based on how he sees the situation...he isn't lazy. A little less sarcasm in your post might actually give them more weight.
BTW-- My take...2 points for the winner, 0 for the losers regardless if it is a regular time, OT or shootout situation. I'm a marine engineer so math and I are on a first name basis and I work a lot (too much according to my wife).
Archangel- Well you had at least half right. Its not arrogance its passion but to be honest, I don't really care if people think I'm arrogant or sarcastic. As someone who avidly follows sports and I mean all sports(except NASCAR, I just can't call that a sport) I do understand sports and its little quirks.
Comparing hockey's point system to basketball and baseball win-loss system was ignorant, of course I didn't say this before but its true.
Now say if you were to compare it to another league that has a point system say like soccer then it would be a comparable situation.
I'm not going to apologize because my knowledge of sports goes beyond the American sports realm.
As for your take, I've stated this before but, if the shoot-out is considered as the same as a regulation win, then why don't they use it in the playoffs?
In fact ask any Canadian, and they are probably the most knowledgable hockey fans, and see if they think a playoff game, series or *gulp* a gold-medal game should be decided by a shoot-out.
The truth is that a regulation or overtime win is considered to be better than a shoot-out win and should be rewarded as such.
By the way, being a marine engineer doesn't mean you aren't lazy when it comes to sports. My friend is an engineer at NASA and he doesn't like the points system in the EPL. He says it "complicates" things. I'm pretty sure he is into math too.
Personally, I hate the shootouts deciding anything. Playing a full TEAM game including O.T. just to be decided by a one on one contest makes no sense. It seems that fans love this aspect and find it exciting to watch. But is it that the shootouts are exciting or do the fans just like to see one on ones? Why not get rid of the shootouts and call more penalty shots during the game so the excitement of the one on one is there for the fans during the game and not at the end. You can do this by by setting up a system where if a team takes more than three minor penalties in a period then penalty shots are awarded for every one after that. At the start of the next period the slate is clean and each team is allowed three minor penalties before another penalty shot is awarded. Doing this will give the fans their one on ones if the teams keeps taking penalties and regulation play has more of a chance of deciding the outcome.
As far as settling a tie at the end of regulation you play O.T. - sudden death is sudden death - you play until some one wins. Using one system during the regular season and another during the playoffs makes no sense. You award 2 pts. for the winner 0 pts. for the loser. Play to win. Adding more points if you win in O.T. or a shootout or regulation just masks over the problem and adds more confusion to the casual fan who already has a tough time understanding the game.
With more penalty shots, things are more likely to be decided during regulation and it may even deter teams from taking so many penalties. The fans win with the one on one excitement and you eliminate the need for it at the end of the game when the game result hangs in the balance. Leave that to overtime and give no points to the loser. Players will play harder and smarter to earn the 2 pts.
I understand the game and you understand the game, but the casual fan finds it confusing. And the casual fans are the ones the NHL are trying to target. The less confusing they make it, the more casual fans can follow it. It's not a question of want, it's a question of how when it comes to the casual fans understanding.
The introduction of penalty shots based on accumulated penalties will just make the point system more of a mess.
If the NHL 'needs' a winner I think they should give 3pts for a regulation win with 2pts to the OT/Shootout winner and 1 point to the loser. Although I would really rather see it go back to the 5 minute OT and no shootout. I'm ok with ties in the regular season.
LGB - thanks for being an ####. Clearly you missed the point of my post and misinterpreted the message. I was merely pointing out the simplicity of a win-loss system as in MLB and NBA. A win being a win and a loss being a loss. It doesn't matter if points are involved or not. Can you understand that? Or am I going to have to endure another immature rant. The ignorance my friend is purely on your end as you did not make the effort to understand what I was trying to say. Laziness is not an issue here. I am merely poiting out that a simplified system will more likely make more sense to casual fans. And thats the point of the new NHL isn't it?
As far as integrity is concerned, when a league changes how they award points every few seasons, from an outsiders perspective it would appear that the league is disorganized. My opinion, but I'm sure many would agree.
So the next time you run-a-mouth LGB, take a few seconds to understand the other persons point. I never attacked you about any of your posts. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine. But I think for the integrity of the sport, the NHL decide on one specific point system and leave it at that. Or maybe you fail to understand the meaning of the word 'integrity'.
I agree, I think its ridiculous to give a team a point, if you lose then you lose, you should get nothing...if teams were forced to push for the win, late in the season, those overtime points are going to mean a lot...Its like the Instigator rule that was put in, thats as ridiculous a rule...in the past the players regulated themselves, then that #### of a commissioner (who put himself in the hall of fame and was subsequently removed) put this rule into play and after this, stickwork went up, players stopped having respect for one another and cheapshots went up, hits from behind went up...all because you didn't want to lose a player for the game for fighting...Stupid Rules that are unnecessary for the game of hockey...do away with the point for losing and the instigator rule for fighting.
The point system has bothered me as well. I believe there were more ties last year than there were before the lockout, but Im not too sure about the actual numbers. I just cant fathom the new system. Why are games that go into OT worth 3 points ? It makes no sense for some games to be worth 2 points and others are worth 3 points. We are rewarding teams for what ... for making it to OT ?
There is more to this issue beyond the point system. The whole point of making OT 4-on-4 was to open the game up, but now in the "new" NHL it doesnt seem necessary to have it be 4-on-4. And what about the goalies; goalies dont get "shootout losses", they get losses. It screws with old records, such as most points in a season for a team and so forth...
I would rather revert to the old system: 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss.
Mmm... Doing away with the third point would be fine in my book. The object of the game, much like any competition, is to win. I feel a similar issue with NASCAR, whose points system should be based on the number 36 - one point given out for the winner of every race.
In the NHL, it's possible for any team to take two points away. It's not so much about winning anymore as it's about surviving. I hate that notion, it takes away the competitiveness of sports, which in their purest form are exactly that: competition.
The shootout is a great tiebreaker. It's better than a coin-toss (Check up on the NFL playoff qualifiers). However, the main objective is to win, by any means necessary. I think it was the Canada/Sweden game years ago that LGB was talking about. I appologize for not remembering the year. Sweden won in a shootout.
International competition uses overtime followed by a shootout in every tournament round. If I remember correctly, it's a full 5-on-5 period, and if the tie has not been broken, there are five shooters per team.
I find that to be naturally boring. In '96, I stayed up most of the night watching overtime after overtime during a playoff game. I want to say it was pittsburg and new jersey, but I don't think that's right. Any of you hockey trivia guys might know. Nedved scored the game winning goal, if that helps. Anyway, my point is, that was far more exciting than watching three guys a side go one-on-one with a goalie.
For those interested in how I think the NHL should remedy the situation, I don't have a proper opinion
This whole thing should come down to making the teams be aggressive for the points. My idea is as follows:
Win in Regulation=3 points
Win in Overtime=2 points
Win in Shoot out=1 point.
Losing team gets nada always.
It could lead to some interesting things happening late in the season (Like no goalies towards the end of a tie game for the points) but isn't that what the NHL should be about? Wins = points.
Hey Spector..why don't you have a blog about blown calls by ref's like Nick Magoo with the Edmonton Oiler and the Dallas Stars on how a ref can make two big blown calls that affect the outcome of the game and just because the ref admits he messed up that no discipline occurs because he confessed....I would like to know why small market teams get #### like this and nothing is done about it.
There's been enough reports and blog posts about McGeough's blown call and the subsequent uproar. Obviously he blew it, and MacTavish got punished, not for questioning the call, but for calling it "retarded" and using harsh terms to criticize it. I don't believe it has anything to do with bias against small market clubs; it's merely coincidence that the Oilers have been on the receiving end both this season and last.
Chompsey- You didn't "attack" one of my posts? I'm pretty sure you said you see no point of a 3-2-1-0 system. And I'm pretty sure I'm the one who said that...Look buddy if you're afraid to get into a debate then don't debate. I've understood what you are saying but its just ignorant to say what you've said and I"ll explain it again for you.
The NHL has never had the "simplicity" of a win-loss system. If you make it a win-loss system that means you abolish the point system which I doubt the NHL will be likely to part with something that they've had since the beginning.
Now since they are unlikely to part with the points based system, the 3-2-1-0 would reward teams based on when they won and would actually reward a win for being a win and a shoot-out win for being just that. Now if you don't understand that a shoot-out win isn't the same as a regulation win or an overtime win then I'm sorry. Go back to watching the simplicity of the NBA and MLB....
Gregsky- Again the casual fan isn't attracted just by making everything beautiful. The casual fan has to want like the sport. They have to take the time. If they don't care, they will just keep changing the channel until they find something they like.
This notion that you have to dumb down the sport just so that the casual fan will take notice is ridiculous. Soccer, which is the most popular sport in the world, has a "complicated" points system. Casual fans are attracted to this, why?
Oilfan-I know your pain(actually I know much worse). If what they did to Buffalo is what they are going to do Edmonton then you can expect a rule change saying you can now do hand passes...
Instead of taking appropriate action against the refs the NHL tries to cover up their mistakes. Sad really.
LGB - I never said they should "dumb down" the sport for the sake of the casual fan. I merly stated the casual fan finds it confusing already and adding more confusion doesn't help. I know that you don't care if the casual fan gets it or not, but the fact is that the NHL does. When we are talking about casual fans we are really talking about the American market.
Your comparison of soccer and hockey is apples and oranges, but since you brought it up I'll oblige. Fans of soccer are on a global scale. If we talk soley about American fans of soccer we can bring this comparison a little closer. The game play of soccer is easy to follow - players stay on the field longer before changes are made - the game play is slower - the ball is big and easy to see - soccer is a non expensive sport parents can get their kids to play - kids don't need a rink to practice - kids don't need lessons to learn how to run. Now, even through all of this I'm not convinced that the American fan is that sold on the sport of soccer, regardless of the points situation, but they do understand it better. I'm also not convinced that soccer fans are the target group. In hockey - the game play is fast and difficult to follow - players stay on the ice less than a minute at a time - the puck is small and hard to see - it is expensive for parents - kids need a rink to practice - kids need to learn to skate before they can play. Now, with that, hockey has an uphill battle to start. The bottom line is American fans find the sport confusing enough already why make the point system more difficult.
Last edited by Gregsky on November 7th at 7:23 AM.
Some people are comparing hockey to MLB and The NBA, they only award wins and losses. but that's because those sports aren't physical enough and they can keep playing until there is a conclusion. no limit to OT's like playoff NHL.
The NFL is to physical to just play until it's over. so they need an end, and their overtime is controversial as well. Some think they should play an entire quarter not just 'first to score', but at least in the NFL ties are less likely than in the NHL.
When i'm watching division rivals of my team play, i'm just hoping for a regulation ending. because if my team wins its game, they get 2 points. but if the rivals go into overtime the winner gets 2 and the loser 1. how does their game turn into a three point game?
I Just want consistancy, there should always be the same amount of points up for grabs. not some games worth 2 and some worth 3, so that needs to be changed.
so either the three point system, which is used by the worlds biggest sport, soccer, and is also the only other major sport using the point system.
or we go to all or nothing, 2 points win, no points for a loss. is any hockey fan, traditionalist, anyone who really loves hockey (the main fan base who came back after the lockout, unlike MLB fans) is any fan going to accept this? two teams play to a tie through 60 minutes, they tie during the kinda gimmicky 4-4 OT, and a team loses after a shootout and gets no points? Players will hate it and it won't reflect how the teams faired against each other.
i) they're both low scoring. soccer more so, but i'm comparing to NFL and NBA. MLB is the same, but they can play extra innings forever, as long as there are pitchers. so MLB OT situation is good.
iI) they both have high occurances of ties because of the low scoring.
bonus) they both have really awful, controversial, OT Shootout scenarios. at least NHL only uses theirs in the regular season as a way to get on Sportscenter (Sportscentre :) and i enjoy it because, it is only a regulation game, no cups are awarded on the shootout.
all of your differences between NHL and Soccer are true, but how are they really relevant to the point scheme?
i think the amount of ties shows the real similarity of the leagues, and how they have a common problem. Soccer goes to a three point scheme.
Canadians bug Americans about being dumb about hockey, but really. how much more complicated is:
Three points for a regulation win, two for an OT/Shootout win, One for an OT/Shootout loss.
than
Two points of a regulation win, Two for an OT/Shootout win, One for an OT/Shootout loss.
At least if you add up the game totals the points issued are equal. See, i'm a CANADIAN ENGINEER and i understand how math applies to hockey much better than bombs.
(the last bit is hopefully obvious that it was meant for archangel and not gregsky)
Last edited by SLPound on November 7th at 11:23 AM.
Gregsky- So is the problem for casual fans, the points system? Or is it that its too expensive to get your kids to play?
I do care if casual fans get involved because then the NHL will start to get more coverage and I won't have to search online for updates on the teams around the league. ESPN will actually start to cover the sport.
But like I've said a million times, casual fans will get involved when they want to. They have to want to watch. The casual fan hasn't been really watching because they haven't seen the new and improved product. Its going to be time that gets the casual fan back, just like it was in baseball after their lockout.
SLPound- I'm glad someone else understands the "complication" of a points based system.
Last edited by LetsGoBuffalo on November 7th at 1:01 PM.
Are you kidding me?? Gary Bettman says...Magoo admitted he made a mistake, time to move on...In the NCAA, when refs affected the outcome o####ame, they were suspended for their mistake, thats taking responsibility in my books..Bettman....Nice call you Hobbitt...glad you can DIRECT the NHL...####!!!!
SLPound "At least if you add up the game totals the points issued are equal. See, i'm a CANADIAN ENGINEER and i understand how math applies to hockey much better than bombs."
This will be my last post on this forum. I don't need this type of insulting comments in my life. I expect an apology.
I love debate but this comment is purely personal. My job has nothing to do with bombs and my nationality should not make a difference. I live in Italy but I am a Canadian citizen. I was born in Canada and lived there for 30 years.
I expected more from this site and the people posting here.
Archangel- I don't know how that comment would affect you then. Its obviously a swipe at Americans. So if anyone should be offended, it should be me. But on an internet forum, who cares?
wow, if you're having such a bad day that my comment got you angry, i'm sorry and you obviously didn't need it.
let me clear something up, are you an engineer with the marines, or an 'Engineer of the Sea'. my comment was mainly saying 'come on! you're arguing that a 3 point system is TOO COMPLICATED! give me a break and maybe realize that everything can't be black and white, some times balance and a formula ensures fairness and equality.'
what i said about engineering was a comment on how many engineers are arrogant and self important. and thinking that our math skills allow us to see the correct scheme better than others is quite arrogant. But you know what? we're adding 1's 2's and 3's and i dont think anyone needs to be made to feel like their opinion is less valid because they dont have a degree.
Spector-
why dont you acknowlegde the history of the game in your article. the fact that regular season games used to just end at the end of regulation with a tie and each team got a point and the games over. why dont you mention that regular season overtime was not introduced until 1983, it is relatively new as well.
The main reason why your idea of giving the loser nothing in overtime/shootout makes me seriously angry is you've forgotten that 4 on 4 hockey and shoot out hockey is not NHL hockey. real hockey is 5 on 5, and if the teams play to a tie playing 5 on 5 they both deserve a point. The only way i would accept your simple black and white scenario is if they play 5 on 5 until a goal.
You may see nothing wrong with changing the ga
Last edited by SLPound on November 8th at 9:54 AM.
SLPound---I'm an "engineer of the sea" not military. I'm just having the worse day of my life and I read it the wrong way. Reading it now, I wonder how I ever misread so much in your comment. I need a long holiday I guess.
For me this point system seems strange only in one regard...I've always thought there should be clear cut winner and loser o####ame. Maybe it's a mental block I've got.
Win in Regulation = 2 pts
Win in Overtime = 2 pts
Win in Shootout = 1 pt
Lose in Regulation = 0 pts
Lose in Overtime = 0 pts
Lose in Shootout = 0 pts
A win should always be 2 points and losing should always be 0, unless it's in a shootout. This way, losers are never rewarded, yet the shootout is still there to please the fans. I think if this were how it was done, than the teams would try really hard to win in regulation or overtime... rather than to gamble by letting it go to a shootout and get no points at all if you lose. And a shootout isn't really the game of "hockey", so I think you shouldn't get awarded 2 points for winning a shootout, hence my suggestion of only 1 point.
If you disagreee with this method, think harder about it and you will see where I'm coming from!
I'm Lyle Richardson, also known as Spector, Foxsports.com 's "Prince of Pucks".,which is based on the fact I live in Prince Edward Island, Canada and I couldn't think of a better byline. I've been an NHL hockey commentator since 1998 on my website, Spector's Hockey, and I'm a contributing writer for Foxsports.com , The Hockey News and Eishockey News. I'm also a regular on The Faceoff Hockey Show and a frequent guest on "The Late Crew" on The Team 1200 Ottawa.
