> Some thoughts regarding overtime (in general). After viewing
>Wisconsin's pair of overtime playoff victories over North Dakota
>last weekend, I believe that no game should end in a tie. Knowing
>that one team or the other was going to come away with a victory
>made for high drama.
> However, since I'm sure somewhere down the line
>some two teams would find a way to tie regardless of how long they
>would play, I would be satisfied with increasing the regular season
>game overtime length (WCHA) to one 20 minute period.
> As an added incentive for winning, perhaps some consideration
>should be given to awarding zero points to both teams for a game ending
>in a tie; call it a "No Decision" game.
> I am not opposed to shootouts and think they can be very exciting
>but hockey is a team game, and consequently, shootouts are a distant
>second choice when compared to winning the game during normal play.
I could not agree more with Zac. Leaving a game after a tie, you get a
hollow feeling. It's like nothing's happened since you entered the
building. I also think overtime in the regular season should be extended,
at least to 20 minutes, if not until someone scores.
However, I don't really like shootouts. I live in Milwaukee when I'm not at
school, and am well-versed in the IHL, who decides ties with the shootout.
A couple years back, they eliminated overtime altogether, and just played
the shootout after the 3rd period (which I thought was stupid). I will be
the first one to tell you that shootouts are very exciting (after all, the
penalty shot is the most exciting play in the game). However, it just
doesn't seem fair to give five players a shot to determine the outcome of
the game. Zac again has it right. Hockey is a team game.
Plus, Canadians can't say shootout right. (Just kidding!! I don't want to
start a war here!)
Todd D. Milewski [log in to unmask]
"U-Rah-Rah Wisconsin!"
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
