Funny, is it not, how the outnumbered party that isn’t having its way on a given issue tends to speak out in easily greater decibels?
In the wake of a mind-hooking, rapid eye-rubbing plethora of ties in the past week, including double knots in both the Northeastern-Maine and Vermont-Boston University series, Beyond the Dashers reached out to all eight Hockey East head coaches with an obvious question.
So, is anybody second-guessing the league’s decision to, unlike the women’s WCHA and the men’s CCHA, abandon the shootout so soon after exercising the option for only two years? After all, in a league that claims with rigid stat-based support to boast the nation’s best parity, aren’t ties kind of a bother?
Before this report went to press, five coaches responded, and only one was decisively opposed to reviving the one-on-one lightning round.
“I don’t like shootouts,” said a blunt Maine coach Maria Lewis. “I have no problem with ties because they are both earned and lost and should be left as such.”
The rest of the respondents were either moderates or steadfast revolutionaries. Unlike Lewis, who would consider no hypothetical tie-breaking innovations other than a 4-on-4 overtime, everybody else seems dead tired of deadlocks.
Already, out of 21 games played so far between Hockey East cohabitants, eight have ended with the contesting clubs splitting the loot in the standings. New Hampshire is the lone tenant that has yet to hatch the goose-egg in its “T” column. Five teams have been involved in at least two conference draws, Vermont leading with four to their credit and a 0-4-4 league record coupled with a peculiar 1-4-7 overall transcript.
“All the coaches that voted against the shootout surely wish they had the shootout now,” said Providence skipper Bob Deraney. “You’re looking at a coach who wanted the shootout, believed in the shootout. It would alleviate a lot of the problems that are coming down the pike right now. So, hey, the coaches got what they deserved as far as I’m concerned.”
With the old three-point game approach, Deraney reasoned, there could be less fear of clutter in the standings come February 20, when the ice chips settle on the regular season and playoff seedings, not to mention championship hosting rights, need to be determined.
Northeastern’s Dave Flint took an additional stride and proposed to Xerox the CCHA’s new points system. As of this season, Tom Anastos’ teams know they are playing for a three-point package even before the opening draw. Regulation and overtime victors take the entire jackpot while shootout winners claim two points, conceding the remainder of one to the runner-up.
“I am also in favor of 4-on-4 overtime,” said Flint. “That would likely produce more winners in 65 minutes thus having fewer shootouts.”
Katie King and Tim Bothwell, of Boston College and Vermont respectively, voiced no ardent stance on either end of the shootout spectrum. But both are firm in their preference to somehow diminish ties.
“I am fine with or without the shootout, but I would rather have a 4-on-4 overtime,” said King, who also would not object to augmenting the sudden death period from five to 10 minutes.
“I think we should be able to have a winner at the end,” she concluded.
Bothwell is likewise open to several proposed alterations to the overtime format, albeit with caveats attached.
“I like the entertainment value of the shootout,” he admitted. “But there just isn’t support for it amongst the coaches. I am in favor of extending OT to 10 minutes and playing 4-on-4, although it does tend to benefit the better teams.”
The preseason decision naturally affirms Bothwell’s claim that the majority does not favor the shootout at this time. But if the advocates persist and sway enough of their colleagues, the prevailing wind could pivot back at any time. America has repeatedly seen that in politics and it can happen in puck legislation as well.
Al Daniel is the Hockey East correspondent to Beyond the Dashers
The below is directed at no one specific person ...
ReplyDeleteBlargh ... All you folks of whatever stripe with the clamoring for shootouts, shootouts, shootouts are going to ruin many hockey games with the grotesque implementation you all seem to favor.
Having a shootout safety net dictates strategy at the end of hockey games both in regulation and overtime play. That is a problem. If you can accept the premise that a tie represents a valid outcome then I can accept that you need a mechanism to differentiate standing over the course of a season.
If then you insist on using shootouts ... DO THEM BEFORE EVERY SINGLE GAME and use those results over the course of the season to break the ties in the standings. Just DO NOT use them in a manner that affects the way teams strategize the last 5 minutes or overtime play. As currently implemented this shootout thing that allegedly is favored by so many only happens every once in a while.
If as you believe "so many" favor it ... then why not provide that mind-numbingly moronic entertainment for the braindead BEFORE the game? Seriously! Wouldn't that mollify the mob? Maybe the dimwit bandwagon fans that now arrive consistently late would show up to the rink on time to watch the shootout.
The current implementation of shootouts in the NHL is ridiculous. The way they do it in the Womens WCHA and the CCHA is ridiculous. Get the shootouts out of the game I love by putting them before the game. That should ensure the results of the damnable unrepresentative skills competition have no impact on the way the teams compete for the W-L or T.
Ties are valuable for many more reasons that just the "point" they earn in the standings. Quit making fans and players rationalize shootout results. There is nothing wrong with a tie.
Don't mean to offend anyone here. But I'm sick to death of shootout talk. If it comes to my league in its current form I'll seriously consider ending my nearly 35 year relationship with the sport and just watch English Premier League, World Cup Soccer and the Olympics ... until I suppose you people come along and ruin them as well because you think there is something wrong with a tie.