John Nash brings up an interesting point here in the shootout debate.
 
>>>        I guess my point here is that I had no "hollow feelings"
>>> about the tie, belying the "fans hate ties" CW that is supposed to
>>> guide me.  In both games, I think a shootout would have been
>>> wholly inappropriate.  The teams "split" the series, which I think
>>> is indicative of the way they played against each other.  The ties
>>> were fair and just.
 
 
If two teams are equal for the weekend (or season for that
matter) that is, they split the series, no one seems to be
asking for a way to decide which team "should have" won.
 
So why is it that in a single game we need to have a clear
winner?  Other than in a tournament situation I don't see
a need for this, and in that case I would much rather see
the final result determined playing 5 on 5 hockey, unless
of cours there are penalties.
 
I was in a tournament last year that had a very strange
overtime decision process.  The first OT was 5-5, the second
4-4, and the third and subsequent 3-3.  In the 3-3 situation,
a penalty resulted in the team with the advantage being able to
place another skater on the ice until the first stoppage of
play after the penalty had expired.
 
The result, at least for our team, was that the best skaters
were selected and wound up getting very tired by the time the
game was decided in the 4th (I think) overtime.  I think it
would have been much better to just keep playing 5-5 until a
decision was reached.
 
Wendy Istvanick