Well, I disagree with Erik, Mike, Mark, and it seems like most
of the world.  I like trying out the idea of a shoot-out.  To me
there should be a result to a match.  I think the spirit of the
idea is good.  And a win is a win.
 
The other sport I follow is English footer.  Soccer in general has
gone the way I see ice hockey going.  That is, coaches afraid to
lose.  Thus they rather play for a tie, and a possible re-play
on Thursday, than let it rip, and go for the win.  I therefore
like anything that pushes coaches and players to play the game.
The shoot-out brings more fun into the game itself, but I believe
will cause more matches to get settled in the 3rd period, like they
should be, which is also more fun.
 
I like the general direction of the rule changes.  To me it says,
let's keep college hockey as ice hockey.  This junk that is on right
now, that I can tolerate for part of a period, should be called
hold and push/whack and sack/war of attrition.  Too often I am seeing
some college men's games headed in that direction.  Its only so
important, and if it isn't fun, and it isn't a game, with some sports-
manship, who cares.  Obviously millons ...
 
I'll have to say I wasn't overly thrilled with the NCAA games in terms
of interesting hockey.  But I do agree with the many, it doesn't seem
that rule changes have much effect.  It is up to the coaches and
players.
 
I suppose that's why I have come to like women's hockey much more.
Without hitting (there's an idea) the game is what I love to see:
skill.
 
 ______________
/
 good shooting
 rhun
______________/