Taken from the Indiana Daily Student 1/11/95.  Used without permission,
although I wrote this, so I think that I should have permission to
reprint it :->.
Face Off:  By Andrew Smith
HOCKEY NEEDS ALTERNATIVE TO SHOOTOUT FINALE
        It happens on any given night in an International Hockey League
or NCAA Hockey East rink.
        To some, it is the pinnacle of excitement.  To others, it is an
utter decimation of the game and a cheap demonstration of individual skill.
        It is one man, a puck, and the goalie whose job it is to stop it...
happening ten times after every tie game--five shots for each team.
        It is the dreaded shootout.
        Although it is not used in the National Hockey League, the
shootout is one of the most talked-about aspects of hockey today.
        It has crept into many of the minor leagues (the American Hockey
League tried it but has since discontinued it) and the IHL has used it
successfully for years.  The NCAA conference Hockey East introduced the
shootout this year to a mixed fan reaction.
        Those in favor of the shootout say it is an exciting climax to an
otherwise dull tie game.  Somebody should come hoeme a winner, they say,
and the shootout heightens fan interest.
        But the shootout turns off many die-hard hockey fans who fear its
growth and possible inclusion in the world's premier league, the NHL.
        Those against the shootout say it cheapens the game and decides a
team sport with a feat of individual skill.  They see the shootout as
anti-climactic and compare it with ending a basketball game with a free
throw contest or a baseball game with a home-run derby.
        In an unofficial *Daily Student* poll taken of hockey fans
nationwide via the Internet (getting about 75 responses of mostly IHL and
HE fans), a prevailing opinion is that the shootout is OK if it is used
responsibly.
        But two-thirds of those fans polled said they are against
shootouts in any form, while most of the responses for the shootout
favored the Hockey East point system.
        Hockey East uses a point system that uses the shootout slightly
more responsibly than other leagues in that it is used only after a
five-minute overtime, and a shootout win is worth less than a win in
regulation--three points as opposed to five.
        The IHL seems to be less responsible with the shootout, but the
league also claims to be in the business of family entertainment. The
league uses no overtime and goes directly to the shootout.  A shootout
win is worth as much as a win in regulation, but the loser also gets a
point for a shootout loss.
        "It not only cheapens the game by reducing it to a two-minute
fiasco that favors the lucky, it also seriously clouds the standings by
making some games weigh more than others," said Atlanta Knights contact
Jarrett Campbell.
        Both leagues are cautious with the shootout.  They avoid it in
the playoffs, thus appeasing the hockey purists and keeping things
suspenseful.
        There is nothing more exciting than the suspense of a playoff
game overtime, knowing that every shot could mean elimination and the
next goal ends the game.  And the suspense builds the longer the overtime
goes.
        The international hockey game has yet to figure that out--they
decide Olympic and World titles with the shootout.  The 1994 Olympic
championship was won in this fashion when Sweden defeated Canada, thus
annoying many Canadians and probably providing the impetus to keep the
shootout out of the NHL forever.
        "I think the better team won, but this was a lousy way to win a
game," said Sweden's Peter Forsberg, who scored the winning goal in that
shootout.
        There are other, more hockey-based, solutions to having a
shootout, which is mainly in place to appease the fans, not the players.
        The best idea to replace the shootout and still come up with a
winner is to extend the traditional five-minute sudden-death overtime to
ten minutes, thus giving teams more time to score and less incentive to
play for a tie.
        A study done by RPI's Kurt Stutt shows that in RPI games played
with a ten minute overtime, 78 percent ended with a winner.  But with the
five minute overtime, used since 1989 in the ECAC, only 52 percent of
overtime games have had a decision.
        Eric Lindros of the NHL's Philadelphia Flyers had an interesting
solution--play a five-minute sudden-death overtime, but with 2:30 of
four-on-four play and 2:30 of three-on-three play, to open up the ice and
increase the chances for a goal.
        Lindros said that if there was not a winner after that, then the
two teams are definitely equal and the game should not end in a tie.
        And the best part of both solutions is taht a winner is decided
on the ice in the flow of play, not in a hollow, cheap crap shoot at the end.
 
------------Go IU Hoosiers-----------------------Go Boston Bruins----------
Andrew Smith                Ph--812-857-1658           [log in to unmask]
       Email for info on the IHL and US Women's Soccer Mailing Lists
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've fondled them before, but I've never played with one.
            --John Kruk, when asked if he had ever played with a corked bat