Mark Gibbons said:
>The only fair way to decide these things is to have the teams play until
>somebody can score (although I hate sudden death in American footbal as
>it is creates artifical play like a shoot out does).  As an alternative
>I have seen tournements that start with an OT then play 4-on4 then 3-on-3
>This should, in theory, help the better skating team & I would object less
>to giving this a try.
>
>But lets face it.  We all hope for the day hockey gets real TV exposure
>& given that TV wants a predictable end time & easy to follow drama they
>will dangle the check only if they have input on the rules.  Heck, if our
>attention spans get much shorter TV may give us all shootouts & no game!
>. . . now . . . what was I talking about . . .? 8-{ )
>
Baseball gets plenty of T.V. exposure and that sport is probably the most
unpredictable as to how much time any one game can take, what with not only
extra innings that are only sudden death if the home team is up to bat, but
with rain delays and rain-outs, for which the radio and television stations
have to come up with something to take its place.  But baseball has been on
television a long time and I doubt that its game structure is going to
change to suit T.V.
 
Hockey, well, pro-hockey for sure, is at a vulnerable stage in its life, not
having a T.V. network contract, and having media orientated corporations
owning teams.  Shoot-outs are part of the Disney-fication of hockey, the way
Disney sees hockey as in the Mighty Ducks movies.
 
I don't know if shoot-outs even accomplish their stated goal of ending a tie
in a predictable amount of time.  It seemed to me that the shoot-out for the
Olympic Gold Medal game took longer than most overtimes.  All that fooling
around to get set up.
 
I would accept an arrangement where there was first a five minute overtime,
then resurface the ice, then do the four on four (for four minutes?) three
on three (for three?) etc.  I would prefer overtime forever, but if
something had to be changed, I think that sort of arrangement would be O.K.
because it would bear a passing resenblance to hockey.  (There would be some
passing because there would be more than one player on the ice.)  I wouldn't
want this for play-off games however.  If we are really concerned about too
many tied games and about the length of the college game, this is something
that might work.  I would rather see them do something less radical first,
like give the players a five minute break before overtime starts and then
have an eight minute overtime first, before resurfacing the ice.  That
little change would give the players more rest going into overtime and a
better chance for a win to result.
 
                                 - Paula