--- Mike Machnik writes --- A shootout benefits a team that has a good offense. Nowhere does the defense come into play, because they aren't allowed to defend the shootout. That's unfair to a team that has earned a tie against a high-powered opponent by virtue of having played stellar, swarming defense. Offense is certainly part of the game, but so is defense. ------------ OK... I've been sucked into this discussion (although I should be working on my Cell Biology lecture). Thanks Coach Walsh for starting the discussion. I agree with Mike completely on this. A tie game is quite exciting to watch, especially with an overtime period. To decide it using a shootout spoils the other 65 minutes of high quality HOCKEY. Personally, I don't find anything wrong with a tie, as long as we are not talking about a tournament game. Following Mike's point and trying to figure out how to break a tie game, why not allow play to continue with 3 on 3 (not counting the goalies) after the 5 minute OT? This would still be "real" hockey and would lead to a greater likelihood of a score. Most folks have said that 3 on 3 is exciting to watch (and I agree) - this would be 3 on 3 in overtime with the next goal determining the winner. The play would involve both offense and defense and of course goaltending. Since different "rules" would be used to decide the outcome, 2 points for the winner and one for the loser would be appropriate. I don't know if the ice surface would need to be resurfaced or for how long the 3 on 3 should be allowed to continue. Just some food for thought. Bob Gross