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
______________/
|