From what I've seen, most of the talk about the shootout fails to ask the
most important question . . . . is it hockey?  My contention is that it is
not!  Hockey is a team game, usually  won by those who sacrifice individual
accomplishments, i.e.shots on net (potential goals) for the greater good ,
I.e. victory, of the team.  The very concept of a shootout runs counter to
everything that we are taught about team sports.   The shootout rewards the
team that has the better snipers, not the better playmakers, backcheckers or
defensive defensemen.  What better example to prove my point than that Maine,
the only undefeated team in Division I,  has lost  all  of their shootouts.
 Is it because they are somehow  deficient as a team?  I don't think so.  A
far better solution to the problem (if it is one) of settling ties would be
to have a shootout in stages. Start with a 3 on 2 confrontation where the
skills of playmaking and defense could be exhibited, then a 2 on 1 where the
emphasis on offense is somewhat greater and then, finally, the shootout.
 This is certainly not an original concept with me.  It has been used over
the years in the between periods, mini one-on-one contests, of Boston Bruin
telecasts.  If we must go to as many lengths as possible to find  a winner ,
why not be as fair as possible to both teams!  Lets reward those who succeed
by keeping goal scoring down as much as we are now rewarding those who just
happen to have the better shooters.
 
Greg Ambrose, UNH '72 . . .Go Blue!