Perhaps it's time to start SHOOTOUT-L. :-)
 
Let me see if I can cover a few more posts in one here...btw, everyone
raises good points.  I hope no one takes my rebutting of them personally.
 
So you know, I am including here responses to questions/comments by Dick
Crepeau, Rich Delano, Steve Moerland, Patrick Blake, and Erik Biever.
 
Dick Crepeau writes:
>First, what is wrong with a tie?
...
>Second, it is clearly a cultural thing. Americans simply must have
>winners and losers.
 
I understand your feelings, but I have to reiterate, most of the
issues raised are not relevant when it comes to the shootout in
HE.  I.e., what is wrong with a tie, Americans need to have winners
and losers, etc.
 
That is because the game that ends in a tie, is recorded as a tie.
Both teams receive a tie in their HE and overall records.
 
Clearly, nothing is wrong with a tie.  In fact, despite losing the
shootout to Northeastern a few weeks ago, Merrimack seemed happy to
get two points for the tie out of the game, and NU seemed satisfied
with picking up the three points on the road after a tough series.
 
There will be teams that will be happy with ties and teams that won't.
 
>In Canada and in Europe where the level of performance is valued as much as
>who wins and who loses this is not as significant an issue.
 
But some Canadian junior hockey has shootouts, and the World Cup
shootout in soccer as well as the Olympic shootout in hockey both came
out of Europe.
 
I don't believe it is a cultural thing at all.  That's just an
off-the-wall explanation dreamed up a while ago by someone who opposed
shootouts and who was looking for a way to express his opinion while
also getting people who didn't know any better to bow to his apparent
intellectual superiority. :-)
 
Rich Delano writes:
>Last weekends BU-Maine shootout left me
>just as disappointed as a tie would have.  BU needed the win, not the tie
>or the SO win.
 
And this is a key - if a team needs to win or expects to win, then
even a shootout after a tie will be disappointing because you didn't
get the full five points.
 
>I believe that Hockey East has done a great job in trying to keep everybody
>happy.  The change in the point system was done, I believe, more for the
>'old' fans since us purists were still cringing a bit at the prospect of
>gaining 2 points for a SO win.
 
Just a minor nitpick...the point change wasn't made to keep old fans
happy, or any fans.  It was made because the commissioner saw a flaw
in the system, and the coaches agreed.  If the fans agreed with the
change, then that is fine, but the fans weren't the driving force.
 
>A shootout win is recognized as being slightly better
>than a tie, but not nearly as good as a win.
 
And that is exactly what the new point system is meant to accomplish.
It may not be perfect, but it is better than what we had before.
 
Steve Moerland writes:
>    Someone, (forgot who) made the comment that they hope the CCHA doesn't get
>their hockey opinions online (or something like that) because you didn't want
>to have shootouts there.  Actually, for once, Hockey-L is not going to
>represent the bulk of hockey fans.
 
It is important to realize that although HOCKEY-L is slowly carving a
niche for itself in relation to the game, it still does not in any way
represent an average sampling of college hockey fans - it never has,
and it probably never will.  Most of the people here are absolutely
crazy about the game - the upper edge of the curve, as it were.  Why
else would you put up with all the mail? :-)
 
I am confident that neither the CCHA nor any other conference would
make a decision based solely on what was said here.  After all, HE
folks saw the poll results I had given them from last summer in which
an overwhelming majority (80%) opposed the shootout, and they put it in
place anyway.  Good thing they didn't listen to us, eh? :-)
 
Patrick Blake writes:
>If not, was there any particular reason that a 5-minute OT
>period was decided on as opposed to 10 or more?
 
A longer OT wouldn't have accomplished the goal, which was to increase
fan interest.  It was not seriously considered from what I understand.
As well, an OT of more than 5 minutes is frowned upon by the league
and coaches because of many reasons, including:
 
* Ice gets bad enough that you have to make ice for a 10 min OT,
whereas you can get away without it for a 5 min OT.
* This leads to another intermission and anywhere from an additional
20 minutes to a half hour or more before the game ends.
* Teams want to get out early so they can get home (if on the road)
and get up for class (weeknight games).
* Longer games (on the avg) decrease fan interest.  During the regular
season, anyway.
 
Finally, Erik Biever writes (email):
>I ask once again:  why
>not have a shootout after every game?  If, as you say, the reason for the
>shootout is to increase fan interest, then why deprive the fans at games
>that don't end in ties?
 
Well, that's a good question, and it might be the only one I don't
have an answer for.  Maybe it's because holding the shootout can be
justified if the game ended in a tie.  I don't actually know.  It
might be worth asking - I'll file it away.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93