In article <[log in to unmask]>, Mike Machnik
<[log in to unmask]> says:
>
>Tony Buffa writes:
>>Boston U. 5, Maine 5, tie (Boston wins 2-1 in a shootout)
>>
>>Shouldn't the word "tie" be left out of this type of listing.  Yes, I know
>>that according to the NCAA it is a tie, according to HE it is a SOW, but
>>this is score reporting.... just say BU 5, Maine 5 (BU wins shootout), no?
>
>Well, if a game ends up tied, it should be noted with "ot" since even
>in HE, the game is considered a tie in the standings.  I don't think
>"tie" is a problem, especially if AP is also using this for other
>(non-HE) games, although it seems pretty obvious that a 5-5 or 2-2
>game is a tie.
 
To list a score as Boston U. 5, Maine 5 (tie) is redundant. Anyone can
see the game ended in a tie. I also don't think it's necessary to note
the game went into overtime. All of the leagues have overtime, right?
You obviously can't have a game go into overtime unless the teams were
tied at the end of regulation. I do believe it's necessarily to note
that a game was won in overtime, to give solace to the losing team.
(Of course, going back to denoting a tie for a game that went into
overtime, it could be argued that novices to the sport might not know
there is an overtime.)
 
As for reporting Hockey East shootouts, I still don't think it's
necessary to note the tie. However, a note is necessary to identify
the shootout winner. But I don't think it's necessary to note the
score of the shootout because the shootout goals don't count toward
anything but trivia.
 
Just my opinion...
_____________________________________________________________________
Ryan Robbins               "Nothing in fine print is ever good news."
University of Maine                                  -- Andy Rooney
_____________________________________________________________________
[log in to unmask] ____________________________________________