.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, January 08, 2007

Time To Nix The NHL's Shoot Out!

After watching the NHL's Minnesota Wild lose in a shoot-out Saturday night to the Colorado Avalanche, and after seeing too many games end up in this ridiculous manner of settling a tied score, it's time for hockey fans to demand this absurd method of breaking a tied score be replaced. And it's not just because the Wild lost.

The NHL tie-breaking method of a Shoot Out - a player from one team attempting to go "one on one" against the opposing goalie, with this forum exchanged until one team scores a goal by which the opposing team receives a final attempt to even the score and if they don't, they lose - is just a stupid way to end a hockey game. It's unfair to all TEAMS as a whole because the win/loss doesn't reflect who the better team is for that particular game.

Imagine an NBA game, after its teams are tied after playing one period of over-time, with the winner being determined by a game of One-on-One. It's ridiculous, yet this is basically what the NHL Shoot-Out amounts to. I'd like to think an outcry from fan, players, coaches and owners would rescind the Shoot-Out. Are there any fans out there who like the Shoot-Out?

I don't know that the NHL's previous "Both Teams Tie" method isn't better, or worse, for that matter, than the Shoot-Out. The argument is that games can run extraordinarily lengthy if continued over-times are played until one team wins the game the old fashioned way, by scoring and defeating their opponent. Well, so what, so the game goes long? That's why we're watching it in the first place.

I don't have the stats to back me, so what I'm about to say is spoken just like a True Blue Liberal: I don't
BELIEVE that there's a high percentage of NHL games that result in a tie after one over-time period, having to default to the Shoot-Out as the deciding factor of who wins. So why not just keep playing over-time until one TEAM wins?

So, what's the alternative out there? I'm for playing Over-time periods until a winner wins.

Scanning my blogroll I notice the following that immediately stand out as those I suspect or know are NHL or sports fans. What's your take on this?

Miss O'Hara - I know you love your Red Wings. Any comments on the Shoot-Out?

Len -
you're in Canada, you have to be a NHL Fan, right?

T.C., I know you like the ice. Want to weigh in on the Shoot-Out?

Nick - I know you love sports, especially baseball; any thoughts on the Shoot-Out?

- - - Update: Link to Len (Above) fixed.

Linking Here:
Leather Penguin
(With some thoughts on the issue.)

As a former goalie, I friggin' loathe that shootout crap. A guy can play his heart out for three periods and the overtime, hang a big fat zero on the scoreboard, and then he's gotta FACE THE OTHER TEAM'S BEST SHOOTERS ON FREE RIDE BREAKAWAYS?!
The other thing that drives me crazy about the shootout is the losing team walks away with a point. That's BS; they lost... what, they get a point for good effort? It used to be two points to the winners, nothing to the losers, or a point to each if the tied. That made sense; this 'point for losing' is ridiculous.
Excellent point on the losing team getting a point, I forgot to include that.

Heh, yeah, the loser gets a point for "good attendence: maybe.

We NHL fans gotta get that shoot out outta there. Thanks my friend for adding your input! Greatly appreciated.
Actually I'm an anomaly amongst Canadian sports fans in that I'm not really a hockey fan. Imagine that - a Canadian that doesn't follow the NHL!

I used to be a HUGE fan but lost interest during the last labour disruption. These days I'm a huge CFL (Canadian Football League) fan.

Insofar as the "shootout" is concerned I don't really like the idea. It's another one of those dumb ideas they stole from European hockey.
Your idea of playing continual overtimes is horrible. If a team had a long overtime game with one opponent, then have to face a fresh opponent the next day (not even factoring in possible travel time that may exist), the chances that they would lose that second game are much higher. Punishing a team just because of a difficult game is ridiculous. That being said, I still don't agree with a shootout. The fact that the game is cheapened to five minutes of breakaways to determine a winner is dumb. With the shootout rule, they might as well just do a shootout as the way that all the games are determined. However, many hockey do like the shootout due to the mentality that a winner needs to be determined in any sporting contest, and that a tie is anti-climactic. Many of these fans could watch an amazing display of talent in a game, and since it ended in a tie, they feel cheated. Since hockey is fighting against the fact that it the least watched major sport in North America, they will cater to these fans to garner more support.
LEN - a Canadian who DOESN'T like hockey? OMG! Heh! We gotta do something to change this shoot-out policy. It doesn't reperesent - even remotely close - of who the better team is that night.

I know very little about the CFL, so I'm unable to discuss with 'ya...sorry!!

Take care, my friend!
DH - yeah, the players would be tired. Perhaps they would have to make future schedules so that there would always be at least one day off in between games? No consecutive games? I'm unsure what you meant by "punishing a team". If you meant a tired team of players losing is punishment, I agree, but that isn't any more fair than a shoot-out not being representative of who the better team is when it winds up with a tie score being settled by a shoot-out.

Thanks for adding your comments and visiting.
Post a Comment

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker

Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.