I'm with the minority who FAVOR the shootout idea to end ties--but only
if it is impossible to convince the powers that be to play until someone
wins in overtime, as is done in the playoffs and national championship
tournament.  Ties, to me,are less satisfying than a somewhat artificial
win via a shootout.
 
One poster complained the shootout takes the team aspect away from the
game.  Of course it does, but then why do we all get so excited when a
player gets a clean breakaway and comes in on the goalie all alone?
Isn't that exactly the same thing?  (Yes, I know, often the breakaway is
the result of someone else's steal and pass, but often it isn't, too.)
And what about penalty shots?  I haven't heard anyone saying do away
with them.
 
Again--IMHO they should play until someone scores the old-fashioned way,
but a shootout is better than quitting with a tie.  Basketball teams
have to face the same problems hockey teams do in terms of night games,
consecutive road games, etc.  Of course the physical wear and tear isn't
as great, but we don't seem to take that into consideration when we're
in playoffs, do we?  (Unlike the really major golf tournaments used to
do, when they would delay until the following day their 18-hole playoffs
if the regular rounds ended with two or more players tied.  Golf gave it
up due to TV--except for the U.S. Open, I think--but college hockey,
unfortunately, doesn't have that excuse.)
 
One last thing, in defense of Mike Machnik.  Mike is HALF right, despite
that one post: baseball has sudden death in the home half of each extra
inning!
 
On a completely different subject, I can't resist putting my foot in
about whether or not the Ivy League and similar schools have athletic
scholarships.  Of course they do--they just don't call them that!  Now,
I am quite willing to believe that athletes who are recruited to the
Ivies, etc. primarily as a result of their prowess in sports ALSO meet
the minimum academic requirements of their institutions, and those are
usually quite high.  However, I'm not sure I'd call what the athletes
get academic scholarships if a goodly portion of the student body with
equal or better academic qualifications do NOT get a scholarship.
However, if someone can furnish some financial aid data on such
institutions' relative treatment of athletes and nonathletes, and it
turns out that the scholarship student-athletes (overall, not just the
best students among them) have the same kind of academic superiority or
financial aid need as the nonathletes getting scholarships, I'll
cheefully eat my words right here on Hockey-L!  ;-) (These comments are
primarily aimed at NC$$ Division I institutions, not Division II and II,
or NAIA.)
 
 **********************************************************************
 *  Steve Christopher, NMU  [log in to unmask] - GO CATS!  * * * *    *
 *  NCAA Division I Hockey National Champions  1990-91   * "WE'VE *   *
 *  NCAA Division I Hockey Final Eight 1991-92           *  ONLY  *   *
 *  NCAA Division I Hockey Final Eight 1992-93           *  JUST  *   *
 *  WCHA League Champions 1990-91                        *  BEGUN"*   *
 *  WCHA Playoff Champions 1988-89/1990-91/1991-92         * * * *    *
 **********************************************************************