In message <[log in to unmask]> Carl Lindberg writes:
 
>   Having the "1 point for overtime/shootout loss, 2 for a win" thing
> would eliminate the trying not to lose bit, but that idea rubs me the wrong
> way.  Suddenly, you have a total of 3 points being taken away from the game
> between the two teams, which seems to me would skew the standings.  Unless
> you wanted to start giving 3 points for a regulation win...
 
This is probably the best idea I have heard.  Have each game be worth 3 points
instead of two.  Then as soon as it is a tie by the end of regulation both teams
are guaranteed a point but they will really open the play up to try to get the
other point.  This would also encourage teams to try to win in the last
remaining time of regulation since an overtime win is not worth as much as a
regulation win.  NOT a bad idea.
 
I have tried to stay out of the shootout debate, but here is my $0.02.  Hockey
is much more of a team sport than even baseball is.  And as was pointed out,
baseball doesn't go to a homerun derby at the end of nine innnings.  The game
should be decided by the team and not 5 or 6 indiviual players, with individual
efforts.  Especially championship games where no team needs to "move on" to the
next round.  One suggestion I haven't seen here is HOW about awarding both teams
A Gold Medal???  They both played the mandatory regulation and overtime periods
and they were still tied, and are thus both deserving.  That may not be the best
solution but, IMO, it is MUCH better than shootouts.
 
I have nothing against shootouts.  In fact, as a goalie, I used to love to have
penalty shots/shootouts taken on me.  I have never been scored on on a penalty
shot or shootout in my career as a goaltender (from peewee up through 3 years of
varsity college hockey) and I always love the challenge.  However, it doesn't
reflect how the team plays as a whole.
 
Ryan Stone
Rensselaer '93 & '95
Lawrence Univ. '93