In article <[log in to unmask]>, Mike Machnik <[log in to unmask]> says: > >Tony Buffa writes: >>Boston U. 5, Maine 5, tie (Boston wins 2-1 in a shootout) >> >>Shouldn't the word "tie" be left out of this type of listing. Yes, I know >>that according to the NCAA it is a tie, according to HE it is a SOW, but >>this is score reporting.... just say BU 5, Maine 5 (BU wins shootout), no? > >Well, if a game ends up tied, it should be noted with "ot" since even >in HE, the game is considered a tie in the standings. I don't think >"tie" is a problem, especially if AP is also using this for other >(non-HE) games, although it seems pretty obvious that a 5-5 or 2-2 >game is a tie. To list a score as Boston U. 5, Maine 5 (tie) is redundant. Anyone can see the game ended in a tie. I also don't think it's necessary to note the game went into overtime. All of the leagues have overtime, right? You obviously can't have a game go into overtime unless the teams were tied at the end of regulation. I do believe it's necessarily to note that a game was won in overtime, to give solace to the losing team. (Of course, going back to denoting a tie for a game that went into overtime, it could be argued that novices to the sport might not know there is an overtime.) As for reporting Hockey East shootouts, I still don't think it's necessary to note the tie. However, a note is necessary to identify the shootout winner. But I don't think it's necessary to note the score of the shootout because the shootout goals don't count toward anything but trivia. Just my opinion... _____________________________________________________________________ Ryan Robbins "Nothing in fine print is ever good news." University of Maine -- Andy Rooney _____________________________________________________________________ [log in to unmask] ____________________________________________