I'm firmly in the "shootouts are exciting, but so are train wrecks"
school on this one. (The same was true *before* Sunday, should you
feel like inferring anything from my e-mail address...) For myself,
I think a tie is a perfectly good result -- it just means there was
nothing to choose between the teams on the day.
When there has to be a winner, I've always found the *real* excitement
to come in sudden-death overtime: you can't look away because someone
might score. In comparison, while I was precariously perched on the
edge of my seat during the Canada-Sweden shootout, it seemed somehow
an artificial kind of excitement, almost as if somebody had said
"It's a rule: you gotta get excited about this". If, as in the earlier
medal rounds at the Olympics, the ice is needed for another game, then
I'd (reluctantly) agree to a shootout, but only after a decent amount
of OT.
 
Here's a different suggestion for the regular season: no shootout, no
overtime even. Just give three points for a win. Towards the end of a
tied game, this should give the teams plenty of incentive to go for the
winner, because they have more to gain than they do to lose. Compared with
the current setup, where teams might play cautiously towards the end of
regulation so as not to "give it away".
(In case you're wondering, this idea comes from soccer, where several of
the European leagues, even hidebound, traditional England, have gone this
way. But soccer has an even worse shootout idea, penalty kicks, than
hockey does).
 
Just my Maple Leaf on one side-Queen on the other- two cents.
 
--
Ken Butler
[log in to unmask]