David Josselyn responded to Mike's original comments:
> >
> >There is one big problem I think needs to be solved if the shootout is
> >going to become standard.  It is just not right that a team that wins
> >a SO should receive as many points for the game as a team that won a
> >game in regulation or in overtime.  Effectively, the SO winner was not
> >able to beat the opponent in the "normal" way the game is played.  I
> >would like to see a change in the point tally so that a regular win is
> >worth the most, followed by a SO win, followed by a tie.
> >
>
> Mike, while I recognize the logic in that argument, the ramifications are
> just too far-reaching to be practical. It means either dealing in
> half-points or making a win worth at least three points. I don't see either
> of those things ever happening.
 
I don't see why half-points are so bad.  Baseball has had the concept of half
games behind the leader and has no problem with it.  Why not have a SO win be
worth 1.5 pts?  Geez, don't let Eddie Andelman hear that we hockey nuts are
too dense to handle half points.  We'll never hear the end of it...
 
[Those not in the Boston area should be aware that Eddie is a sports talk show
"personality" (the popularity of whom utterly escapes me) who at least pretends
to have total disdain for hockey.]
 
I actually argued last year that the NC$$ ignoring the SO win had the effect of
making the true points gained as somewhere between 1 and 2 points, but I think
it would be great to make the SO win a 1.5 point night in league standings and
a 1 point night for the NC$$s.
 
>
> Oddly enough, I am. Merrimack may well win fewer league games than in their
> inaugural season: 3. UMA will be gunning for them with a passion, because
> they know they have only one real shot at passing a team in the standings,
> and that's Merrimack. MC will have its work cut out taking 2 out of 3 from
> them.
>
 
I'm not sure that I agree about UMA having only one shot and that being
Merrimack.  I don't want to get into specific teams, but there are several
that could have very bad years if a lot of things went wrong.  Well, I will
mention one team and that is Providence.  They've had a horrific loss and
then played a lot better.  Which team are they?  ANd they've already had the
bad luck... their top goalie is out for 3-4 weeks.
 
I do think that it'll be *very* tough, though, for any team (Merrimack
included) to have so much go wrong that they fall into last place behind UMA.
It's just too tough to compete
with a team almost entirely of freshmen and sophomores.  Maybe next year and
definitely the year after, though, it'll be someone other than UMA in the
basement.
 
But my point is that Merrimack is in no more significant danger of being in the
cellar than a couple others.
 
>
> MC the last few years was the best overtime team in the league. If things
> were close... they could pull it out. Teams will know now they don't have
> to win an overtime game against Merrimack... they only have to survive
> until the shootout.
 
First, was there a reason for being one of the best OT teams, or was that
possibly a statistical anomaly.  Maybe too few instances for the stats to mean
anything.
 
Also, I can't see teams figuring a SO is a "gimme" against Merrimack or any
team.  There is too much chance involved.
 
Finally, if the team has any NC$$ aspirations at all, it will be playing for
the win before the SO.  It may be two points in league standings, but for those
teams the NC$$ viewpoint is a lot more important.
 
 
DaveH