Greg Ambrose writes:
>From what I've seen, most of the talk about the shootout fails to ask the
>most important question . . . . is it hockey?
 
I don't think this is the most important question...
 
It seems kind of ironic to me that at the same time, over the past
few weeks, we have had the following two issues raised on HOCKEY-L
(not necessarily by the same people):
 
* We need to expand the scope of college hockey and get more people
interested in it.
* The HE shootouts are bad for the game.
 
Does anyone else see the paradox?
 
When the HE coaches and athletic directors were deciding last summer
whether or not to institute the shootout, the primary consideration
was trying to draw more interest to the sport - exactly what we have
been clamoring for here over the last 5+ years.  They took the gamble
that shootouts would help in this area.
 
Right now, it seems very clear that overall, the gamble has worked.
Shootouts have been very successful with the fans and press, their few
detractors aside.  Fans stand on their feet for the entire proceeding
and often cheer louder than they did at any point during the game
itself.  Any close game I have been at (and with Merrimack, there have
been more than enough this year :-)) always has fans on the edge of
their seats, wondering if the game will end up tied and if they'll get
to see a shootout.  Heck, I have been at games where the crowd has
chanted, "Shootout...shootout" during the last few moments.
 
As well, attendance at many HE rinks is up dramatically, and HE has
probably had the worst average attendance of any of the four
conferences.  We can't know whether this is actually due to the lack
of NHL hockey, but the possibility is still there that the shootout
has somehow increased interest in the league.
 
And that is the most important question...the underlying reason behind
the shootout's existence.
 
I have to point out that before this season, I was one of the biggest
opponents of the shootout.  When talking last year with Shawn Walsh,
one of the coaches who really pushed it, I offered the opinion that it
simply wouldn't work, that the fans wouldn't want to see it.
 
Well, I was wrong, and I'm not too proud to admit it.  I want to see
the game grow and become more popular, and for whatever reason,
shootouts seem to have had a positive effect in that department.  So I
have to say that because of that, my opinion has changed.  It brings
more fans to the game of college hockey, and that makes me happy.
 
My change of opinion is also why I feel I understand the fact that
some fans from other conferences are still against it.  You almost
have to see first hand the effect it has.  I didn't...but now I have.
 
Greg also raised some other good points that I'll comment on.
 
>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.
 
I don't quite agree with this argument as it applies to shootouts.
Hockey is a team game, but often it is a great individual achievement
that results in victory.  How many times do we see a team get
outplayed but win because of an incredible goaltending performance...
or a great performance by a skater?  There were a number of times last
year that Maine won or tied games because of Paul Kariya.  Joe Sacco
once scored all five goals in a 5-2 BU win over Northeastern in the
1990 HE quarterfinals; the headline the next day read, "Joe Sacco 5,
Northeastern 2."
 
As well, we reward great individual accomplishments.  HE schools name
the Three Stars of every game.  Every conference awards Players of the
Week and of the Year.
 
Ironically, shootouts have proven to me to be more of a team effort
than I would have thought.  Often the 5 shooters a team selects
include players you'd never expect - fourth liners or defensemen even.
Merrimack won its first shootout over Providence, 1-0.  The winning
goal came on the last shot by defenseman Eric Weichselbaumer.  Eric
who?  He doesn't even have a goal this year and had 1 last year.  But
by finishing in the top 5 during the week's practice shootouts, he
earned the right to take part, and he was the only player to score
that night during the real thing.  He had a direct effect on enabling
the team to get an additional point in the standings.
 
>What better example to prove my point than that Maine,
>the only undefeated team in Division I,  has lost  all  of their shootouts.
 
Actually, Maine is 1-3 in four shootouts, with a SOW over BC.  But I
thought their problems in the first two, which they lost, had a lot to
do with the strategy they employed - veering off to one side rather
than going straight in.  Yet, I noticed that they didn't do this the other
night, and they still lost, so maybe I am wrong.
 
It also hasn't always been the team with the "natural scorers" that
has won the shootouts.  You wouldn't have expected Lowell to beat BU,
or PC to beat UNH.  And it took a nobody like Eric Weichselbaumer to
win that SO for Merrimack, after PC snipers like Quenneville and
Kramer had been turned away.
 
There really is a whole new strategy to the shootouts, as I detailed a
few weeks ago in a post I made.  It's kind of exciting because it has
given me a whole new appreciation of the format.  Who will the
shooters be and in what order?  How will they try to beat the goalie -
and what's the best way for the goalie to defend against the shot?
 
In many ways, shootouts aren't that different from "real" hockey.
Sometimes the team with more talent and better scoring wins.
Sometimes the team with better goaltending wins.  And sometimes,
somebody you'd never expect comes out of the woodwork to be the
deciding factor.
 
>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.
 
Those teams do get rewarded - when they win.  But there are teams that
keep goal scoring down and still lose, just like there are teams that
score goals and lose - BU scored 5 goals in 3 straight games against
Maine and went 0-2-1.
 
In closing, back to my point about fan interest - you can rest assured
that if the experiment was failing miserably, HE would already be
discussing getting rid of it next year.  But as it stands, there is
talk that the format may be employed by one or more other conferences
next season, too.  That is a strong indication that it has merit.  The
people whose job it is to try to boost interest in our great game are
taking notice.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93