Count Stan Bowman among those intrigued by the idea of changing the NHL's point system.

The Chicago Blackhawks general manager offered an interesting counter-argument to those who believe a shift to a three-point regulation win would create too much separation in the standings.

“The other side of it, which nobody really talks about, is if you have three points, you can make up a lot of ground,” Bowman told Mark Lazerus of the Chicago Sun-Times.

“They always talk about how it’s going to separate the teams, but you can make up ground quicker. If you win seven games in a row in regulation, that’s a lot better than seven games in a row in overtime," Bowman said.

"I think it would give teams a hope that you could get hot. There would be more separation, but there also would be hope. Right now, it’s just so hard to make up ground on anybody. Because every night, you can win five in a row and really not move up because other teams are getting points when they’re losing.”

As of Monday afternoon, only 10 points separate 11 teams in the Eastern Conference, from the last-place Detroit Red Wings to the Ottawa Senators, who occupy second place in the Atlantic Division. In the West, all but two teams (the abysmal Arizona Coyotes and Colorado Avalanche) are in a playoff position or within six points of a theoretical postseason berth.

The lack of separation in the standings has also clearly cooled much of the typical trade chatter, because many teams still can't determine whether they're buyers or sellers with just over two weeks left until the March 1 deadline.

Much of this parity can be directly attributed to the much-debated "loser point," or the league's practice of awarding a single point to teams for failing to win a game in overtime or a shootout.

There's been plenty of talk in recent years about adopting the IIHF format, which awards three points for a regulation win, two for a win in overtime or shootout, one for losing in the defacto skills competition or in the extra frame, and zero for a regulation loss.

The NHL awards two points for a win regardless of whether it comes after three periods or in either of the extra sessions, in addition to the single point for an overtime or shootout loss.

Coaches like the San Jose Sharks' Peter DeBoer are understandably reluctant to criticize the current system because parity - genuine or otherwise - likely increases his job security, but he does see the benefits of adding incentive toward winning before overtime.

“When it got brought up a few years ago, I initially wasn’t a fan,” DeBoer told Lazerus. “But I’m becoming more and more a fan of it.

"I really like the parity that the two-point system has, where nobody’s really out of it. And having coached some teams that legitimately should have been out of it, it was nice to be able to walk in your room and say, ‘Hey we’re only three or four points out,’ when really, you’ve got six teams to climb over. I like that part of it. But on the flip side, I think there should be a bigger reward for winning and winning in regulation. Because typically the best teams can do that. And they should be rewarded for that.”

Copyright © 2017 Score Media Ventures Inc. All rights reserved. Certain content reproduced under license.