« Does Len Pasquarelli Get Paid By The Word? | Main | The T.O. Rap »

I'm not sure many "traditionalists" argue that shootouts aren't exciting. Sure, I was on the edge of my seat watching the shootout last night, and I let out a yelp when Yzerman scored that totally freaked out my dog, not to mention my fiance.

But that doesn't change my opinion of the shootout as a concept--it's just an absolutely ridiculous gimmick of a way to decide who wins a game of hockey.

I slept through most of the pie in the sky banter during the lockout about rule changes.

But something occurred to me last night while flipping in between EDM/VAN and DET/NAS.

Instead of a shootout, has there been any discussion about settling an overtime tie with a college football style series of 5 on 3? Perhaps give each team 45 seconds to score and then give the other team a chance. That sort of thing.

Re: jrf's suggestion of alternating 5-on-3 in overtime until someone scores...an interesting idea, but isn't it true that in football the first team with possession wins much of time? So you really end up with a game decided by a coin toss to see who gets the ball (puck) first?

You could alternate 5-on-3 rather than have sudden death, though, so the team with the second possession gets a chance to even up if the other team scores first -- only check the score after each team has had the puck an equal number of times.

And what about shorthanded goals? :)

My only concern with the shootout is that I fear its only a matter of time until playoff games get decided by one. The network that controls the purse strings may decide its better for their schedule instead of multiple OT games being played. I was sitting in the stands for a great game (Buf-NJD) and even though it was past midnight, the place was electric. Wouldn't want to stop that drama for breakaways.

As for the regular season, I really don't care about it presence. I do believe that the scoring system should change. Win 3 points (OT included) and 2-1 split in a shootout.

Failure should, indeed, not be rewarded. Each team that wins a shootout has one thing in common: they failed to win the hockey game. The problem is awarding a point for a skills competition that is equal to the point earned for playing hockey.

Teams that win hockey games receive two points. And now teams that fail to win hockey games, but win a different game, receive those same two points. That failure should not be rewarded.

Squawky, you're correct that in the NFL, the overtime period is sudden death, so that's why I suggested a college football style finish where the first team would try to score and then the other team would.

And just like in football, if no one scores or if they both score, then they go into a second overtime. In football, it's essentially a shootout, but is still allowed by the most traditional leaning fan base in north america (Bowls over Playoffs) because it's still in the spirit of a team game.

The more I think about, the more I feel it is definitely an option that would work. Those 5 on 3's are 100 times more exciting to me than a shootout.

Thanks for signing in, .

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)