Leave those shootouts alone!
By Eric Rosenhek
I wish I had the same kind of influence Brian Burke has.
A few weeks ago, during the over-glorified hockey summit in Toronto, Burke stood up and described the shootout as a “wrinkle” when compared to all the other post-lockout rule changes. The Maple Leafs GM felt it was time to consider an alternative method to solve the dreaded tie game.
And suddenly, out of nowhere, everyone is hatin’ on the shootout.
Getting rid of the shootout is a bad idea - just as bad as the glowing puck.
As a fan, I love the shootout. It’s exciting and a great way to conclude a hard fought match. As long as the shootout stays in the regular season and is never, EVER used to determine a playoff game, I have no problem with the NHL keeping it.
According to Cam Cole of CanWest News Service, there were 301 games during the 2009-10 season where the shootout was used to decide a winner; a 6.4% increase from 2008-09. Cole notes the increase was alarming to GMs.
Those who oppose the shootout will argue that hockey is a team sport and, therefore, a full-team effort is needed to win a game.
A shootout takes away the team aspect and the fate of the match then relies upon a one-on-one contest: a skater versus the opposing goalie. Burke described it as a skills competition.
It’s a valid point, but is using a skills competition to break a tie in a regular season match so terrible?
Sure, the players will say they prefer working together to win a game, but deep down, they love the shootout.
Think about it: It’s just you, the goalie, the puck and the net. The spotlight is on you. Thousands and thousands of people are watching you. It’s the scenario we played out when we were younger, on the road or in organized pee-wee leagues.
Who wouldn’t love that? We are human after all.
Some will also argue that the shootout is an unfair way to determine the final standings – a one-one-on-one contest used to gain points instead of a full-team effort.
The Flyers used a shootout to sneak into the playoffs last season. Ditto for the Islanders in 2007. (Remember that one, Leaf fans?)
Fortunately, the NHL recently adjusted its tie-breaker rules and will now only use regulation and overtime victories when clarifying division and conference standings.
It’s impossible to unite shootout lovers and haters (now I know how President Obama feels). However, I have come up with a compromise that both sides will like:
From the beginning of the regular season to the all-star break, all games tied after regulation and a five minute overtime period will be settled with a shootout.
From the all-star break to the end of the regular season, all games tied after regulation will be settled with a sudden death, 10-minute overtime period; five minutes of four-on-four, five minutes of three-on-three.
Fewer players on the ice will hopefully lead to a greater chance of a goal being scored. However, if the match is still tied after 10 minutes, an additional 10-minute period of three-on-three will take place, and so on, until a goal is scored.
This approach is similar to overtime in the NBA, which uses an unlimited amount of five-minute periods until one team has more points than their opponent.
With this structure, the entire regular season will have the same sense of excitement. Those who support the shootout can rest easy knowing that it will still have a prominent existence. Those who oppose the shootout can rest easy knowing that regular season games with more meaning to them – usually held at the end of the season when teams are desperately trying to solidify playoff entries – will be settled using a team-based approach.
Over the next couple of years, the NHL will likely examine the shootout and decide if it is a feasible way to determine a winner. If the league is looking for a win-win solution, then the above proposal is the best case scenario. Fans who enjoy the one-on-one competition will be pleased. So too will the general managers.
Everybody wins.
