VANCOUVER -Forget the H1N1 virus, there is a bigger epidemic in the National Hockey League called the OTL.

The OTL, or overtime loss, is the official designation for a team that drops a game in the extra period or shootout. And before Monday night's eight-game slate, a whopping 133 "loser points" had already been awarded this season.

Dallas led the way with 10, followed by Tampa with nine. San Jose, Anaheim, Florida, the Leafs and Islanders all had seven. Last season, 282 points were awarded to teams that could not win.

We have no problem with the "loser point" if the NHL deep thinkers feel playing someone even for 60 minutes is worth a reward. But teams winning in regulation are being treated the same as teams that need more than 60 minutes to get their victories. The obvious solution is to award three points for a regulation victory and make all games of equal value. Traditionalists may scoff at the three-point solution but what kind of tradition is it when 133 points are given to teams that lost? On both Wednesday and Friday last week, 10 Western teams played and eight earned points. Fourteen of 15 teams in the West were above .500 -- if you treat OTLs as ties when figuring out percentages -- on Monday morning.

Still the idea of rewarding three points for a regulation victory received no support in an informal survey over the weekend. We polled a Canadian, an American, a Finn and a retired goalie and nobody was buying the seemingly sensible solution.

"I don't mind the way it is," Canucks captain Roberto Luongo said. "Obviously it's not in our favour right now and it's a little frustrating but, you know, that's the way it goes. We have to find a way, when we're down a goal, to bring games to overtime and take it from there. It's not helping us right now but that's not the system's fault. That's our fault."

Wild captain Mikko Koivu admitted he doesn't spend much time sweating this sort of stuff. "I don't know about three points for a win, I haven't really thought about it," he said.

"I know in Europe they have three points but I like the way it is here. If you get to the shootout, I think for sure you should get one point. Maybe if you lose in overtime, you shouldn't get any."

Canucks centre Ryan Kesler was not the least bit interested in a three-point regulation victory. "That's too much like European soccer," he said. "Pretty soon, you're going to have 10 points for a win, then 15 points for a loss. I think it works the way it is now. It's hard to win games in the NHL. You battle hard for that one point and I think you deserve it if you tie a game through 60 minutes."

A three-point win should actually add drama to the standings, with teams going all out in regulation to earn the extra point. But Kesler was not buying that theory, either.

"I just like it the way it is," he said. "Some teams are going to play a lot of games where they lose in overtime and might make the playoffs because of it. But they worked hard for 60 minutes to get that point."

Retired goalie Kevin Weekes, now a rookie commentator on Hockey Night In Canada, also endorsed the current system, but conceded that a three-point regulation victory is at least worthy of discussion.

"I think it's a little bit of a novel concept," Weekes said. "I think it always takes a lot of people in the hockey world to get their heads around something when it comes to change.

"One proposal I heard the other night with regards to the OT situation is maybe go 4-on-4, 3-on-3, 2-on-2, then 1-on-1. I think that's pretty neat. I think that's exciting. Not to suggest that the shootout isn't exciting, but I think in this instance teams would play harder and it's a more natural way for teams to try and get that point."