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! /\ / \ /(*) \ / \ /________\