PEORIA, Ill - George Orwell was right.

His book "Nineteen-eighty-four" discussed the concept of 2+2=5. Of course, we all know 2+2 does not equal 5. I can, however, prove that 2+2=6 

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

So says one of the pigs from Orwell's "Animal Farm." We all know that this rule applies to hockey, as well, because some wins are worth more than others.

Let's say two teams play four games. Team 'A' wins two games in regulation. Team 'B' wins two games in Overtime. The result? Team 'A' leads Team 'B' in the standings by two points. Two wins plus two overtime losses equals six points. 2+2=6. Ten points in four games?

Stretched over a season, I think this could lead to some fuzzy math.

Now, I understand the idea of rewarding a team that can keep the game tied after 60 minutes. I can also appreciate the team that can take a lead before 60 minutes is up and keep it. I am for rewarding both, but some wins have been terribly diluted.

Several people have suggested changes, but let's be realistic. No league is going to go back to the days where, after 60 or 65 minutes, a tie is declared. No matter how silly, the shootout is here to stay. (Yes, it is silly. You don't see baseball games being decided by a Home Run Derby, basketball games by Free Throw Shooting, or football games being decided by Field Goal Kicking contests, do you?) The only realistic way to even things out is to change the way standings are kept.

The best way to resolve this is to make each game worth three points. This is the way the Olympics worked in pool-play. Wins in regulation were worth three points in the round-robin round. Games that went into overtime awarded each team a point and the winner, either in overtime or the shoot-out, was awarded another point for winning...but each game was worth the same.

Each game should be worth the same.

In the end, three point games are the best way to do that.

Contact the author at shaun.bill@prohockeynews.com