Chuck Henderson did a fine job pointing out many of the problems wiht the idea of giving one team two points and the other team one point in a shootout and/or overtime situation. I'd just like to add the following. If a shootout is run as was suggested, with two points to the winner and one to the loser, whereas in OT there are two points for the winner and zero for the loser, there would be temptation to "play for the shootout." If my team goes all out for the win in sudden death OT, over a large number of games the average outcome should be one point. However, if we go to a shootout the average number of points over a large number of games would be 1.5. Therefore, playing the percentages might incline a team toward playing for the shootout during the 5-minute OT (disregarding specific league standings circumstances). Similarly, if the "two-points for the winner and one point for the loser" system was introduced for sudden death OT, there would be incentive to play for the OT during the final minutes of regulation. If you lose in the last two minutes of regulation you get nothing, but if you get into OT and lose you at least get a point. If the two teams aren't close to each other in the standings, an OT game would be in the interests of both. I think a win should be a win, a loss a loss, and a tie a tie. If they want to extend OT to 10 minutes, that would be fine. As for adding excitement to the game, gee, I thought sudden death OT was pretty darned exciting already. If, after it's over (during the regular season), we have something like the BU-Maine outcome, then that's probably the best result. Thanks, -Glenn