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!