The Hockey East season is still young, but it is not too soon to see the good
news/bad news of the new shoot-out format.
The good news is that they are fun and really get the fans pumped up.  While they never should be used
for playoff or championship games (which should be decided by TEAMS not
individuals), at least somebody goes home happy.
But the bad news is that HE's method of scoring these stunts devalues real
victories, be they of the 60 minute or sudden death variety.  It won't take
long before the coaches and fans start to figure this out.  Let me describe
three different scenarios to make the point.
SCENARIO ONE
Northeastern plays UNH home and one and wins both in traditional fashion.
BC plays UNH the next weekend, can manage only a tie each time, but is able to
win both shoot-outs.
According to HE rules both Northeastern and BC end up with four points.  Do we
really think that those two teams had equivalent weekends with UNH?  (Eagles
fans should try this mind experiment with neutral teams.)
It gets worse.
SCENARIO TWO
UMass-Lowell goes up to Orono, wins the first night and loses the next.  It
gets 2 hard earned points for its troubles.
UMass-Amherst makes the same trip, has a hot goalie, and gets two ties.  As
luck would have it, UMass wins one of the shoot-outs and loses the other.  It
gets 3 points!
Since when are two ties better than one win?
Let's up the ante.
SCENARIO THREE
We're a couple of weeks into the season: Podunk is off to a good start, winning
three of its first four games.  East Overshoe, by contrast, is winless in four
attempts.  But check the standings:
                East Overshoe   0 wins 0 loses 4 ties 4 SO   8 points
                Podunk          3 wins 1 lose  0 ties 0 SO   6 points
Do we really believe that four ties are better than 3 wins?  I doubt it, but
that's what HE's scoring system implies.
 
The punch line:
Pretty soon, coaches (and fans) whose TEAMS have won real games will cease to
be amused when they see that competitors who have amassed shoot-out points are
ahead of them in the standings, and there will be an immediate backlash against
the experiment.  The problem, however, is not with shoot-outs, but with the
scoring system.
Here's an alternative:
        A.  Give FIVE points to a team that wins in regulation or overtime.
        B.  Give TWO points to any team that ties.
        C.  Give an EXTRA (or third) point to the team that wins the shoot-out.
Thus the total amount of points awarded in a tie are the same as in an outright
victory.  This solves the "grade inflation problem."
Thus in SCENARIO ONE, the team that goes 2-0-0 would have 10 points, as opposed
to the team that tied two but won both shoot-outs (6 points).  That is much
better balance.
Ditto for SCENARIO TWO, where the team that goes 1-1-0 gets 5 points, just as
does the team that gets two ties and splits the shoot-outs.
Finally, in SCENARIO THREE, the team that is 3-1-0 would have an appropriately
comfortable lead of 15 points in the standing to 12 for the team with four ties
and four shoot-out victories.
Depending on how you feel about ties, you can play with the weights, but the
simple fact is that if ties generate more points than victories, you undermine
the value of genuine wins.