At 11:00 AM 10/31/94 -0500, Mike Machnik wrote:
 
>>I also thought Bob Norton got overly excited about the shootout on purpose. I
>>don't like it, and I got the impression that HE wants no negative vibes on the
>>new concept so that it gains early acceptance.
>
>You've got to be kidding.  Whatever Norton said was what he felt
>about the event.  Maybe he did overdo it a bit, but you're suggesting
>here that HE told Norton to overdo it, and that is plain silly.  HE
>doesn't tell Kurtz and Norton what to say, and I suspect if they did,
>the two Bobs would tell them to get lost.
>
 
I think Mike is right here-- Hockey East simply doesn't mean enough to NESN
(usually) for the league to be able to dictate that kind of thing. I think
Norton was being honest-- he said he didn't like the idea at first, and
didn't like it in the olympics, and that's true. It does generate viewer
tension, though, so it's great for tv....
 
>They don't have different records.  A tie in HE is a tie overall, just
>as a tie in the ECAC is a tie overall.  The only thing that is different
>is the point totals, which of course affects the standings.
>
>There is one big problem I think needs to be solved if the shootout is
>going to become standard.  It is just not right that a team that wins
>a SO should receive as many points for the game as a team that won a
>game in regulation or in overtime.  Effectively, the SO winner was not
>able to beat the opponent in the "normal" way the game is played.  I
>would like to see a change in the point tally so that a regular win is
>worth the most, followed by a SO win, followed by a tie.
>
 
Mike, while I recognize the logic in that argument, the ramifications are
just too far-reaching to be practical. It means either dealing in
half-points or making a win worth at least three points. I don't see either
of those things ever happening. Barring that, if the current system is not
workable, the shootout should be used for what it is: a promotional device,
and then discarded next year. If the real concern is avoiding parity (too
many ties) than it does what it says: it separates teams with better
individual players from those who play well together but don't have
individual stars. Look at Maine-BU the other day. The two *teams* played
even. I thought's Maine's offense was disciplined, tactically sound... they
knew where everybody was going to be. BU did as well. But BU's forwards
were better solo than Maine's, as was Herlofsky... and that was the
difference. HE is saying that all other things being equal, we'll let the
blue chip players give their teams an edge in the standings so everything
isn't so up in the air at the end of the season (too many ties). I think
it's a mistake.
 
 
>Merrimack's 0-4 start is its worst in at least 10 years.  Oddly
>enough, I am not concerned.  That's probably because recent great
>nonconference starts have turned into dismal campaigns once the HE
>portion of the schedule rolled around.  It is time for a change. :-)
>I'll gladly take close losses to Colgate and RPI in return for a
>couple extra HE wins.
 
Oddly enough, I am. Merrimack may well win fewer league games than in their
inaugural season: 3. UMA will be gunning for them with a passion, because
they know they have only one real shot at passing a team in the standings,
and that's Merrimack. MC will have its work cut out taking 2 out of 3 from
them.
 
Of course, true to form, the odd thing will be is that they will probably
lose more games by a closer margin than before... they will seem to be
better, look better, have better GF-GA stats, better goalie stats... and
everything will just utterly fail to translate into the win-loss column.
That's the pattern of the last five years.
 
And shootouts, by the way, bode particularly badly for MC. They don't have
any individual stars except maybe Legault, and at Colgate he looked suspect
at times. I understand one goal at RPI was another long-range, unscreened
shot... a la Mike Doneghey. That scares me.
 
MC the last few years was the best overtime team in the league. If things
were close... they could pull it out. Teams will know now they don't have
to win an overtime game against Merrimack... they only have to survive
until the shootout. MC has had problems so far this season hitting
wide-open nets while in uncontested possession of the puck (once or twice
at Colgate, and against RPI from what I've heard) so I don't see much hope
for most of the young forwards in a penalty shot situation... I understand
Adams missed a breakaway chance against RPI... Teal Fowler has returned.
 
_Dave Josselyn_