On the one hand, I sort of sympathize with Hockey East's desire to lessen
the number of tie games, since a tie is usually not all that satisfying to
the players, coaches, or fans of either team. On the other hand, I have to
wonder a couple of things:
1. What's with those HE folks, anyway? First it was the proposed 50-
minute game a few years ago, now this. They've worked pretty hard to
establish themselves as a top-notch college hockey league since separating
from the ECAC back in 1984. Why do they feel it necessary to endanger their
reputation with these little "experiments"? It kind of reminds me of the
ECAC's mini-game in the playoffs, which thankfully is no more (at least on
the Div. I level).
2. And what is so horrible about a tie game anyway? Maybe the two teams
really ARE equal, at least on that one night. If Team A is really better
than Team B and thus deserves to win more, they've got a maximum of 65
minutes of hockey to prove that point. If they can outscore the opposition,
fine, but if not, there's no reason to resort to some hoked-up gimmick like
a shoot-out (no, I don't like it) just to be able to point to a "winner".
Besides, it sounds like the NC$$ would consider the result a tie in their
ratings whether there was a shoot-out or not -- so what's the point??
Anyway, Mike writes:
>The shootout is NOT an NC$$ rule change. I believe that even if HE
>passes it, they will need to get approval from the NC$$ to experiment
>with it, as with the proposed 50 minute game that did not pass a few
>years ago <Mike wiping his brow in relief>.
I'm not sure how much approval the NC$$ would need to give. When it looked
like the 50-minute game was imminent, I wrote to Laing Kennedy, then the
chairman of the NC$$ Hockey selection committee, and I asked him essentially
how the NC$$ could allow a league to make such a radical change in format.
His response contained the following:
"The Division I NCAA Hockey Committee has no jurisdiction over league
play, only as it applies to the eligibility of the participants.
Therefore, each league can establish their own format."
I imagine the same would apply here. Since the NC$$ could still count
shoot-out games as ties (as they do now for tournament games that have more
than 5 minutes of overtime), they probably wouldn't care whether Hockey East
implemented this or not.
Here's a quick comparison of ties and OT games in the various leagues last
season. The numbers represent league games only. Note that in the case of
Hockey East, the Maine results are treated as is (i.e. no forfeits), which
adds three more ties. Also, the CCHA results include games with Alaska-
Fairbanks, which adds three more OT games (but no ties).
Total % OT
League Games % Games Games % Games Games
Games in OT in OT Tied Tied Tied
ECAC 132 32 24.2% 18 13.6% 56.3%
Hockey East 96 18 18.8% 14 14.6% 77.8%
CCHA 177 30 16.9% 15 8.5% 50.0%
WCHA 160 25 15.6% 16 10.0% 64.0%
Make of these what you will; as far as I can see, Hockey East is not far out
of line with the other three leagues, except in percentage of overtime games
that ended in ties.
I don't have any numbers to back me up, but there does seem to have been an
upswing in the number of tie games since the 5-minute overtime was intro-
duced five (?) years ago. Perhaps it's because of the shorter overtime (and
I actually wouldn't mind going back to the 10-minute OT, as long as there
was a fair-sized intermission before it and the ice was resurfaced). But it
might also have been caused by more parity in college hockey, a result of
reducing the number of scholarships available and cutting the coaching
positions. Just a thought.
--
Disclaimer -- Unless otherwise noted, all opinions expressed above are
strictly those of:
Bill Fenwick
Cornell '86 and '94 (.5)
LET'S GO RED!!
"Know why 7-11 is open 24 hours? They can't teach the help to lock the doors."
-- John Mendoza