I agree. I mean, sure, the shootout between Canada and Sweden was really exciting, but I don't think you can consider that hockey. It's a team sport, and as such, it should be won or lost by a TEAM, not by a few players and a goalie. Even the Swedes thought it was a terrible way to win. As a player myself, I can say that I would personally not like to end ANY game that way. A well-earned tie is better than winning or losing by chance. As a Maine fan, I can see why Walsh would favor the shootout, with the solid goaltending Maine always has, and with the usually consistent offensive skills they have. I don't think it's a positive step for the game, however. You don't see basketball games being decided on free throws... -Brian Sprague On Sun, 8 May 1994 [log in to unmask] wrote: > Somehow the reasoning behind shootouts seems flawed to me. During > the last 5 minutes of any tie game, every shot is an "oooh and aaah" > situation with the spectators. Likewise every shot during the 5 minute > OT period. So, for the last ten minutes of the game, the ENTIRE > building is riveted to the action. That's not enough excitment??? > The best game I saw all year ended in a tie -- UConn v St. Anselm. > Hey, make it the last 15 minutes if you want -- by adding another 5 to the > OT. But **DON'T** send half the building away feeling they got screwed by > a gimmick at the end. > > -- Dick Tuthill >