I still don't understand how Hockey East expects shootouts to be a timesaver, which is their primary reason for choosing them over 10 minute OTs. They estimate that a 10 minute OT would take about 20 minutes to play, plus the required resurfacing would take another 15 minutes, bringing the total to 35. With the shootout format, there is a 3 minute intermission, a 5 minute OT (about 10 minutes real time) and then a shootout of at least five rounds. Judging by the Olympic gold medal game, I would expect five rounds to take about 10 minutes. At the end of all that, what have you saved? Twelve minutes. And that's if the shootout is decided in five rounds. What if sudden death goes on for another six (it could happen, though it's unlikely)? You could have gone with the 10 minute OT instead and not spent any more time. Does saving even 12 minutes do that much for players considering an OT game is about three hours long? It doesn't seem to be that significant to me (but then, I've never had to play one :-). The other main argument from HE is that it isn't fair for a team to play a 10 minute OT game Friday night, then have to face a team on Saturday which didn't have to play in OT. Is it fair to put the burden of a loss on six players? (I can't help thinking about Paul Kariya). Perhaps most of the players wouldn't look at it that way, especially since they would get a point for the game anyway, but I bet somewhere along the line, a goalie or a forward is going to blame himself. I, for one, would hate it if my starting goalie lost his confidence because he played badly in a shootout. I think it's great that Hockey East takes the initiative to try and improve the game. However, this is one experiment I hope the ECAC never picks up. Paulette Dwen Cornell '89 Let's Go Red!