I agree.  I mean, sure, the shootout between Canada and Sweden
was really exciting, but I don't think you can consider that hockey.
It's a team sport, and as such, it should be won or lost by a TEAM, not
by a few players and a goalie.  Even the Swedes thought it was a terrible
way to win.  As a player myself, I can say that I would personally not
like to end ANY game that way.  A well-earned tie is better than winning
or losing by chance.
        As a Maine fan, I can see why Walsh would favor the shootout,
with the solid goaltending Maine always has, and with the usually
consistent offensive skills they have.  I don't think it's a positive
step for the game, however.  You don't see basketball games being decided
on free throws...
 
        -Brian Sprague
 
 
On Sun, 8 May 1994 [log in to unmask] wrote:
 
>         Somehow the reasoning behind shootouts seems flawed to me.   During
> the last 5 minutes of any tie game,  every shot is an "oooh and aaah"
> situation with the spectators.   Likewise every shot during the 5 minute
> OT period.   So,  for the last ten minutes of the game,  the ENTIRE
> building is riveted to the action.  That's not enough excitment???
> The best game I saw all year ended in a tie  --  UConn v St. Anselm.
> Hey,  make it the last 15 minutes if you want -- by adding another 5 to the
> OT.  But **DON'T** send half the building away feeling they got screwed by
> a gimmick at the end.
>
>         --  Dick Tuthill
>