Re: NCHC to use shootouts in conference games
Maybe we don't understand the shootout support because we're just getting old. Sure, the shootout hasn't been around that long compared to some of our ages, but if you're a kid just entering college, the NHL has been using a shootout for half your life, the USHL for longer than that. My daughter grew up watching USHL and NHL games, and saw her first college tie last year during her freshman year. I thought it was a great game, but as we were leaving, she said, "Well, that was unsatisfying." I still don't like it, but the longer it stays around at other levels, the more acceptance there will be. I think it's an inevitability in the college game within 10 years.
It could be age, I guess. But I'm pushing 60. I've actually played the sport since I was about 8, through adult leagues into my 40s. I have been a fan for all that time, high school, college and pro. I watch about 10-15 live div. I games a year, a few on TV and a few pro games on TV each year. If I'm in a pro hockey city, I take every opportunity to go to a game. If I'm in another Div I hockey town, I take every opportunity to watch the game, regardless of if my team is in it.
I kind of like the shootout for college games. It's fun to watch. Sure it's nothing but a skills competition, but I like watching what the boys can do. I think it's totally legitimate and fun in the way they do it in college hockey - the "3 - 2 - 1" points system. Not for a winner take all deal though.
In my opinion, it does in fact provide some meaningful separation between the teams. Mostly in the goaltender area - a hot goalie can win the shootout, just like a hot goalie can steal a game itself or at least keep a lesser team in striking distance.
Of course, I think the best way to settle games in an important context (playoffs, for instance) is to play overtimes until a team scores. But that's not practical for a regular season game.
And as far as motivation goes - I simply don't buy the idea that it de-motivates players or their coaches to win in regulation or OT. That's just silly. I certainly have never, ever seen any evidence in games I've watched.
Look at the standings in any of the Div I leagues to see how extremely tight they are in general. A point or two separates home ice in the playoffs from traveling. A tiny handful of points, just a few, can mean the difference between getting a first round bye if that's a factor. Certainly just a very few points can make the difference between a favorable seed in the tourney vs. an unfavorable one. The good teams - good motivated players and good coaches - fight as hard as they can for every single point, and that means 3 vs. 2 vs. 1.
I just don't buy the idea that a team won't work as hard as they can to get 3 points for a clear victory vs. the chance getting at most 2 for a tie/shoot out win, or worse yet, coming home with just one for a tie and shoot out loss. It's as ridiculous as thinking that a team doesn't want to win two points for a victory and is willing to settle for a single point tie.
The real interesting question is - how the 3 game points system seeds teams in a league vs. what their standings would have been if they quit after the tie and just awarded 2 points per game.
Anyway, just an old guy's view in favor of shootouts. They're fun, do no harm and actually provide a meaningful difference between the two teams that have played to a tie after 65 minutes.
