It’s a standard part of the NHL’s point system debate. Any time someone writes about how the NHL should make regulation wins worth three points -- to make this world a fair and just place -- the next step is to recalculate the current standings under that system. It helps gives an idea of what the NHL would look like under that system; it’s a good journalistic practice.

We ran those adjusted standings recently after colleague Pierre LeBrun expressed his desire to see the league reconsider the idea of giving an extra point for a regulation win (three), as opposed to two for an overtime or shootout win.

Shortly after that story ran, a hockey fan much smarter than myself asked whether coaches would approach regulation any differently with the possibility of a three-point game. It hadn’t even occurred to me; I just figured guys are trying to win now, even if the third period of some tied games suggest otherwise.

So I posed the question to a few head coaches, and, interestingly, the response was split.

First came the answer I kind of suspected.

“I think teams potentially get content to go to overtime in the last 30 seconds, but I’m not a big believer in the last four minutes that both teams are just sitting there,” Tampa Bay Lightning coach Jon Cooper said. “Do you sit there and say two teams battling to a playoff spot are content going to overtime? I don’t know. Maybe a Western and Eastern team playing each other.”

He said he definitely doesn’t believe that happens in games between teams in the same conference or division. Those extra points are too valuable, and preventing the other team from getting them is important, too.

Where he thought we might see a difference is in the final weeks of the season, when teams desperate to gain points would ramp up the aggression when only a three-point win will help.

“I don’t think in Games 1 through 75 you can sit there and, depending on where you are in the standings, change your approach,” Cooper said. “Now, the standings are going to be way more spread out, but I haven’t coached in that system, so I don’t know. I always say, you’re always trying to munch points. Munch points wherever you can get them. You want to be greedy.”

One of Cooper’s head-coaching colleagues over in the Western Conference agreed with his assessment. He says there are so many circumstances that go into how teams approach a game that a three-point regulation win wouldn’t change much.

“Sometimes, you’re the tired team and you’re hanging around and you’re waiting for your break -- you just played back-to-back. Are you throwing caution to the wind and giving up a chance at a point at all [by getting to overtime]?” he said. “Every coach goes into a game and they basically try to sell their team, 'How do we go about winning this game? Can you overpower them? Are you tired? Are there matchups to expose?' To say that you would change your whole mindset -- I think mindsets change anyways dealing with other stuff.”

OK, that’s all very reasonable but not nearly as interesting as the counterpoint. One Eastern Conference head coach says that game play would change fairly dramatically. Not only that, but he also thinks rosters might be constructed differently to push for even more offense to get that regulation win.

The ability to get three points while stopping an opponent from getting any would be such an advantage that he thinks coaches would go all out to make it happen.

“You would coach differently. I’d play different players. In a tie game, knowing I want to end it, I’d play my skill guys more. I wouldn’t say, 'Let’s check the opposing star’s line.' I’d say, 'Let’s open it up and have a high-event shift where I’m not afraid to exchange chances for the next four minutes,'" he said.

This sounds great already.

“I’m willing to walk away with nothing and the next night, I have to get three. I have to coach to get three,” he said. “I would be more aggressive in certain situations, depending on my team.”

He also said different situations would factor into how a team coaches. There are nights where a team is scratching and clawing just to stay in the game. Then it becomes about survival.

But coaches look for every edge to get an extra point. There are instances now, if a game gets to overtime and a coach knows the opposing goalie isn’t good in the shootout or is inexperienced, that coaches will play to get to the shootout.

This happens now. A three-point regulation win would just give coaches another way to get more points and do it in a way that would entice more offense. For a league looking to add scoring, it’s another solution.

“It would definitely change things. It would be better for sure,” he said. “When I’m the better team and we’re dominating you, even then, I’m trying to end it and get the three.”

Which means more offense, because teams will no longer be sitting on leads. They will be trying to build on the lead. One of his first requests would be to his general manager to make sure his fourth line is full of offense, which is where the league is headed anyway.

A change in the points structure might expedite that evolution, where every team has a fourth line with offensive players and power-play specialists, rather than checkers and penalty killers.

If you weren’t already sold on a three-point regulation win, this has to help. It means third periods where coaches are using offense as a way to protect leads -- and third periods where we’d see more risk rather than two teams content to get to overtime.

The problem is that a look at the standings right now leaves little motivation for the league to make a change. Parity is good for fan interest.

The Dallas Stars, for instance, have more points than just two Western Conference teams, and yet they’re just two points out of a wild-card spot.

This is the system and result commissioner Gary Bettman wants, so it’s not going anywhere. A realization the coaches seem to have.

“I don’t think it’s ever going to happen,” one said, with only a hint of resignation in his voice.