Dave Hendrickson <[log in to unmask]> wrote...
 
>Is this bad?  To reward offensively talented teams may well be the right thing
>to do.  So that I don't offend any college teams, let me pose the question
>using pro teams : If you have a chance to watch an offensively gifted team
>like the Red Wings or a Roger Neilsen-coached team, which will you choose?
>ANyone remember the time Milbury couldn't stomach anymore of Neilsen's team
>play and had to leave the bench?  And the general fan reaction to a visiting
>Neilsen team?  Hey, in pituitary ball, the four corners and other slowdown
>tactics were the only way for untalented teams to have a chance against the
>big boys, but a shooting clock was put in because those tactics were hurting
>the game.
 
>I'm not saying that college hockey is flooded with Roger Neilsen wanna-be's,
>but I think that the more offensively-oriented the game is, the better off
>the sport is.  IMO if the more talented teams that try to play offensively
>are pulling away from the less talented teams that are playing defensively,
>then that's the way it ought to be.
 
     I think the fallacy in this thread is that "better" or "more talented"
teams play more offensively and "worse" or "less talented" teams play more
defensively.  LSSU didn't exactly play a wide-open offensive style last
season, yet they were the best team in the NC$$.  To win, a team needs a
good offense AND a good defense.  Occasionally, a championship team has
an excess of one or the other (like Maine's offense in '93), but they
always have enough of each.
     Personally, I like a good offensive game but I also like a good,
disciplined defensive game.  The latter is not at all analogous
to a four-corners in hoops, which obviously would not work in hockey.  I
think the point about shootouts is that they favor a team with five snipers
(and a goalie who is good against breakaways) against a team which does
not possess these particular attributes.  Therefore, it eliminates the
team aspect from the decision of winner and loser.  It shouldn't, IMHO,
be construed as favoring the "better" team.
     I believe someone else raised the point some time ago that a
proliferation of shootouts in U.S. hockey might skew the development of
young players further away from defense and more toward offense, which
could hurt USA hockey in the long run since it already seems to have
problems with defense in international play.  IMHO this is worth
considering.
 
Thanks,
-Glenn