Sorry for the momentary interruption. College hockey was temporarily
invaded by *real life*.
 
4. It's not surprising that Coach Walsh specifically would support
shootouts. His teams have, of late, had the offensive and goaltending
talent that might make the possibility of an extra point tantalizing.
What surprises me is the statement in the BDN that all the head coaches
support it. I can't for the life of me understand why MC's Ron Anderson
would support it. His last five teams have been decidedly
defense-oriented; snipers have been few and far between since 1988 for
the Warriors. The goaltending problem looks under control now, but that's
only half the battle.
 
5. Team defense is such an integral element to the game of hockey that it
bothers me more than a little to decide the outcome of a game with a
shootout, where defense does not come into play. As others have posted,
it's not hockey, it only *looks* like hockey.
 
6. Either get over the aversion to ties, then, IMHO, or play a longer OT
period. The win-at-any-cost mentality, however, that sees ties as
"kissing your sister" and such does disturb me, though. College
athletics, or so I though, unlike the pros, exists primarily for the
participants, not the observers. If the participants play to a tie (such
as the extremely well-played one between BU and Maine this year, or so I
am told) what's wrong with being happy for all the kids who played well?
Why can't both teams feel GOOD about the tie rather than both feeling BAD?
 
I realize this is a lot to ask.
 
7. Does anyone know how many, if any, and which coaches consulted their
players about the shootout?
 
*** "Ah.  This is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' I wasn't
previously aware of."  -- Arthur Dent
David M. Josselyn
[log in to unmask]
 
GO MERRIMACK!  GO ARGUS!  /\
                         /  \
                        /(*) \
                       /      \
                      /________\