Well, we've certainly seen the anti-shootout opinions. I think we should
consider something else.
 
I loved the shootout! It's not like we had all scoring or all great saves.
There was a nice combination of both.
 
Anyway, one thing I think we should all consider is the excitement of it. I knowsome of you won't buy that argument, but think about this: my little sister
(who does not like to watch hockey unless it's the USA playing) was absolutely
captivated and thrilled by the shootout. Believe me, she was an absolute nervouswreck! Second, my girlfriend (who IS a hockey fanatic!) told me that one of
her housemates (who doesn't watch SPORTS, much less hockey) was also taken by
the shootout. Need I say more? My point is, the shootout attracted two more
non-hockey people. This is the best part of the shootout, as far as I'm
concerned.
 
Yes, I still believe that a shootout did not justify that Sweden should have
won. I think John Davidson (CBS color announcer) said that Canada didn't lose
the game, Sweden won it. How profound, eh? :-)
 
My opinion on the whole thing agrees with most everybody else's. I originally
liked the idea of instituting a shootout, but I have been swayed a little. A
Shootout should (logistically) NOT decide a game like Canada-Sweden. The perfectargument against a shootout would be the Capitals-Islanders 5 (?) OT playoff
game back in '87. It was one of those classic, back-and-forth, multiple-
opportunities type of game. Certainly a thrill to watch (had I stayed up until
2 AM to actually see it :-) ).
 
I just want to make the point that a shootout is fabulous to watch. Somebody
correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't we all want everybody to appreciate
the sport a little more? I think a shootout would actually help.
 
Comments are appreciated!!!
 
Andy Weise
SUNY Potsdam '93
Union College '9?
[log in to unmask]        [log in to unmask]