>        "..it's Game Seven of the N.B.A. Finals, all tied after one O.T.,
>O.K. boys, Slam Dunk Contest"
 
    No, no, no.   HORSE! :-)
 
 
  I agree, though.  I don't particularly like ties, but shootouts are
definitely not the way to get rid of them.
 
  Hockey is at a disadvantage with respect to other sports when it comes
to eliminating ties, which is basically the need to resurface the ice
every once in a while.  All the others can keep going right away, while
with hockey you'd have to keep enduring 15-minute breaks.
 
  My first thought would be to extend the overtime period to 10 minutes,
with the increased likelihood of an eventual winner making teams play
more to win than not to lose.  However, I think a couple of weeks back
I saw Mike Machnik say something about comparisons of 10 minute and 5
minute overtimes not showing that much of a difference.  I'd actually
like to see those numbers if anyone has them lying around...
 
  Maybe, then, a full period?  Yeah, there would be one more intermission,
and one that could be aggravating if the game is decided in the first few
minutes of overtime.  But maybe it would be enough time to convince teams
that there will most likely be a winner, and it had better be them.
 
  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...
 
  Until I see something better, though, I still want straight overtime.
I'd rather have the somewhat empty feeling of a tie than the circus of
a shootout.
 
Carl Lindberg
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]