Count me as part of the group that hates both the loser point and the shootout. The stupidest thing in all of sports is ending a contest with a skills competition. So, what to do? To me, the answer is simple. Dump the shootout and loser point. They're dumb. 

"But what do you replace them with?" you may ask. To which I answer, "Nothing."

Look, for 80-odd years a team heading to the ice for a game knew that they would get one of three results. A win, a loss or a tie. Two points for the win, one point for the tie, nothing for a loss. And don't bother me with the "games are played to win, if we don't have a winner, fans will hate it" bull crap. The most widely played, most popular sport in the world is soccer and soccer games frequently end in ties.

The "in close games in the third period, coaches will play for the tie" argument is also flawed. Coaches play for the tie AND the shootout now. If you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself. Coaches aren't paid to win so much as they're paid not to lose and getting to the shootout helps the coach placate his bosses.

If games ending in a tie is abhorrent, allow an overtime. Say, ten minutes and no gimmicks. No 3-on-3 crap. Regular 5 skaters and a goalie. First team to score, wins. But still only 2 points for the win and nothing for the loss. Why? To reduce coaches going for overtime late in the 3rd of a tie game since there is no advantage to playing to get to overtime. Sure, some games will still end in a tie. So what? You got 70 minutes of two teams playing their arses off, trying to win the game. Even better, no stupid skills competition to determine the winner. 

Hockey will still be exciting, maybe even more exciting. Every minute of every game will mean something. And the league will stop tweaking things in a vain attempt to ensure every game has a winner and a loser leading to unintended consequences.