I'll split from the crowd a bit and say that I don't consider shootouts to be
the worst thing in the world.  Perhaps I've been conditioned to them in youth
hockey tournaments where the games must be finished in an allotted period of
time.  A guy I coach with took his team of 1980-born players to a tournament
last week in Detroit, a significant trek, and lost in the semis on a
shootout.  IMO if you can drive for double-digit hours to a tournament and
get bounced in a shootout, then having a league game that adds a shootout at
the end of the 5 minute OT and doesn't penalize the shootout loser, may not be
a bad idea.
 
First, though,  let's can the comments about the Olympics.  Because there was
absolutely *no bleeping way* that the Olympics should have been decided on a
shootout.  No college, pro, or Olympic championship should be decided on a
shootout.  Just because a brain-dead decision was made there, doesn't mean
that by extension all shootouts are bad.
 
I wasn't originally gonna comment on the issue so I haven't been saving the
posts so far, but from memory the primary objections are:
 
  *  Will make HE records one thing and NC$$ records another.
 
  *  Teams will play defensively in the 5 minute OT to guarantee the 1 point
     and then go for the 2 points in the shootout.
 
  *  It's intuitively bad.
 
I think that the first two points actually will to some degree cancel each
other out.  Here's what I mean.  As long as the change is a HE rule only, then
NC$$ tournament selection will ignore the extra point given to the shootout
winner (otherwise HE teams would have an obvious advantage in W-L %, perhaps
what Shawn Walsh is really after :-)   ).  Since the point is irrelevant for
the tournament, then I would guess that teams (except those without a prayer
at the NC$$s) would *not* just go into a defensive shell for the 5 minutes,
at least no more so than they already do.  If they feel they can get the 2
points for the NC$$, then they'll do so.
 
So as long as the NC$$ ignores shootouts, the integrity of the 5 minute OT
will be retained and the shootout will simply give the fans a bit more bang
for the buck.  It won't be that teams get 2 points for a shootout win and 1
point for a shootout loss.  It'll be more like 1 1/4 points for a shootout
win and 1 for a shootout loss.  The win will be a little better than a tie,
but since it'll only matter in league standings it won't have an enormous
impact.  I'm not sneezing at regular season league standings, mind you, but
they don't ultimately decide NC$$ berths.
 
And as long as shootouts don't become overly important, such as being used
in playoff games or their results being used for NC$$ selections, then they
can be another pseudo-ceramic dalmation.  Walnuts on top of a hot fudge
sundae.  Grated cheese on spaghetti and meatballs.  Geez, I'm getting *hungry*.
 
I can see how some might view it as intuitively bad, but that might change as
people see more of them.  I'm not about to march on Washington (or in this
case North Andover) to get shootouts enacted, but I'd be surprised if they
didn't turn into a fan favorite.
 
Here's hoping the purists are gentle as they boot me out of their presence...
 
*****************************************************        ,-******-,
* Dave Hendrickson "Robo" [log in to unmask] *     *'     ##     '*
*        A Hockey Polygamist and Get-A-Lifer        *   *##   ___##___   ##*
* GO BROONS!!!      Go Red Wings!!     Go LA Kings! *  *   ##|   ___  \##   *
* GO UMASS-LOWELL!!!    Go Maine!!           Go BU! * *      |  |___)  |     *
* --------------------------------------------------* *######|   ___  <######*
* Although I can't remember ever having an original * *      |  |___)  |     *
* thought, and am certainly parroting someone who   *  *   ##|________/##   *
* actually has a brain, these opinions are mine,    *   *##      ##      ##*
* not Hewlett-Packard's.                            *     *,     ##     ,*
*****************************************************        '-*******-'