I know this topic has been heavily debated already, but I just got
the most recent issue of CHANCE magazine (published by the American
Statistical Association) and find an article on "Overtime or Shootout:
Deciding Ties in Hockey" by Bill Hurley.  His analysis is pretty
readable for the general public and includes a suggestion for yet
another shootout format which I hadn't heard before.
 
If we have a tie at the end of regulation, we stage a shootout right
away.  The winner of the shootout gets a goal and THEN an overtime
period (say 5 minutes) is played.  The team that is "ahead" by virtue
of winning the shootout wins the game if they score in OT or the
opponent fails to score.  If the opponent (which lost the shootout)
scores first in OT, we hold a second shootout and repeat the process
until a winner is determined.
 
Sounds a bit complicated at first, but it has the appeal that the game
would always end with "full" teams on the ice with either a sudden death
goal or as time expires.   Hurley's analysis estimates that the second
shootout would only be needed in just over 20% of all games which go into
extra time.  He refers to the OT as a "recourse" period where a team can
atone for losing the shootout.
 
I haven't read the article closely yet for details, but I think the
concept is an interesting one for discussion (not that we won't have
enough to discuss as conference playoffs approach!)
 
Robin Lock
[log in to unmask]
Best of luck to BOTH SLU teams hockey playing at Brown on Saturday!