While most of this has already been mentioned in previous shootout
discussioons, I figured I'd post an article written by Chaz Scoggins in
last Wednesday's Lowell Sun:
=============================================================
It's Sudden Death For Exciting Hockey East Overtime Games
This crackpot format isn't as appalling as the two 25-minute-period format
which surfaced briefly - mercifully, VERY briefly - a couple of years
back, but Hockey East is doing its utmost once again to wreck a terrific
game.
Hockey East plans next season to institute a shootout to decide
regular-season games that remain tied following a five-minute overtime.
Five players from each team will be selected to take breakaway shows on
the goaltenders with the team that scores the most goals declared the
winner. The winning team will receive two points, and the losing team
will receive one.
If the outcome is still unresolved following the shootout, the same five
players in each team will repeat the process until the game is decided.
"This will add a lot of excitement for the fans," said University of
Massachusetts-Lowell athletic director Wayne Edwards.
Probably so. But like most short-term highs, it's bad for the overall
health of the game.
The last Olympic hockey gold medal and the World Hockey Championships were
both decided on shootouts. Canada lost the Olympic gold but won the World
Championship, and none of its players, some of whom played in both
tournaments and got to experience the emotion of victory and the emotion
of defeat, endorsed the format. The sentiment was to keep playing until
one team scored a genuine goal. Did the architects of these tournaments
really believe hockey fans would get restless and not remain riveted to
their seats during a tension-building, prolonged sudden-death overtime?
Astonishingly, the Hockey East coaches were the ones who pushed for the
shootout. They weren't unanimous on the issue, Edwards said, but there
was a clear-cut majority.
The coaches also pushed for the two-period, 50-minute game a couple of
years back in an ill-advised attempt to make their games more adaptable to
the rigid schedules of TV. That was rescinded when they belatedly
realized their teams would be at a tremendous disadvantage in tournaments
against teams conditioned to playing 60 minutes a night.
Hopefully, they'll come to their senses on the gimmick too.
In addition to cheapening the game, the shootout will also be a
bookkeeping nightmare. Shootout goals and saves, thankfully, will not
count in the individual stats, but there will be unaccounted-for goals in
the teams stats. Worse, the NCAA will not accept shootout victories in
making tournament selections, instead counting all those games as ties.
So Hockey East teams will have to keep two sets of won-loss records, one
to determine the league standings and the other for national pools and
tournament participation.
What the shootout will also do is punish the underdog team. A less
talented team that has played well enough to earn a tie will be at a
tremendous disadvantage in shootouts because it likely won't have five
snipers of the same caliber of its stronger opponent. Furthermore, the
superior team can also afford to play a conservative style in overtime,
confident in its ability to dominate in the shootout.
Emotion, often the great equalizer in hockey, will be squashed by sheer
skill.
In my opinion, if the coaches are concerned about the proliferation of tie
games, then they should re-institute the 10-minute sudden-death overtime.
- Chaz Scoggins, Lowell Sun, 5/18/94
======================================================================
**************************************************************************
Steve Weisfeldt Go River Hawks!!!!!!!!
Univ. of Lowell (now UMASS-Lowell) 1986, 1988
[log in to unmask] Is it October yet??????
**************************************************************************
|
