--- Mike Machnik writes ---
 
A shootout benefits a team that has a good offense.  Nowhere does the defense
come into play, because they aren't allowed to defend the shootout.
That's unfair to a team that has earned a tie against a high-powered
opponent by virtue of having played stellar, swarming defense.
Offense is certainly part of the game, but so is defense.
 
------------
OK... I've been sucked into this discussion (although I should be working on
my Cell Biology lecture). Thanks Coach Walsh for starting the discussion.
 
I agree with Mike completely on this. A tie game is quite exciting to watch,
especially with an overtime period. To decide it using a shootout spoils the
other 65 minutes of high quality HOCKEY. Personally, I don't find anything
wrong with a tie, as long as we are not talking about a tournament game.
 
Following Mike's point and trying to figure out how to break a tie game, why
not allow play to continue with 3 on 3 (not counting the goalies) after the 5
minute OT? This would still be "real" hockey and would lead to a greater
likelihood of a score. Most folks have said that 3 on 3 is exciting to watch
(and I agree) - this would be 3 on 3 in overtime with the next goal
determining the winner. The play would involve both offense and defense and
of course goaltending. Since different "rules" would be used to decide the
outcome, 2 points for the winner and one for the loser would be appropriate.
 
I don't know if the ice surface would need to be resurfaced or for how long
the 3 on 3 should be allowed to continue.
 
Just some food for thought.
 
Bob Gross