There is NO DOUBT that the powers that be at the NHL have the Shootout all wrong! First off, as a purist, let me say that I hate it! However, as a realist, I know that the fans love it and it is here to stay. The one thing the lock-out should have taught us all is this game is about the fans. They pay all our salaries and if they love it, we should love it. With that said, I must get some things off my chest regarding this exercise thatONLY decides games.

First off, Mike Knuble is right on. It has to be five shooters a side. In the current format, the Shootout can end as fast as two shooters a side (I've seen this happen) and that is not right. Five shooters a side only guarantees three shooters each, but increases the likelihood that you'll see at least four if not more. My feeling is that the Shootout is still new enough to most fans (Detroit just played in its first last night) that when they realize what is taking place they begin thinking how great it is and then before they know it, its over!

Secondly, let's just get to it! Scraping the ice is an exercise in futility. The ice is bad and it's going to be bad for everyone, so let's go! We've all already been there two & a half hours, teams have planes to catch and half the shooters swing outside the scraped area on their way to the net anyway. In my experience I've never seen this done prior to the Shootout and I believe it serves no purpose worth holding the game up another three to four minutes.

Third, why do the coaches have to submit a list? For the PA announcers and TV? As a TV Play by Play broadcaster in this league I can tell you that I look to see who comes over the boards and then I KNOW who shooting. I don't need a list from the coach, to hear it on the PA or have my producer tell me who is coming to figure it out. It's another waste of time and again at this point, let's get going! Besides, if it goes beyond three shooters the coach is simply tapping guys who haven't gone yet until it's decided, what's the difference if that's what he does for the entire Shoot-out. No one can go a second time until all eligible shooters have already gone once anyway.

And finally, and perhaps a bit off the point but still pertinent to the Shoot-out, is why are these games worth more than a game decided in regulation? This may be too radical for the NHL and even purists, as I profess to be, but the three point system is a must if you're going to play Shoot-outs. The thought that a game is worth more because it was tied after 60 minutes is ludicrous! Because we couldn't get teams to go for a win in overtime we've decided that EVERYBODY gets points once we go past regulation. And now that there can be NO TIES that means we're giving the extra point for sure! Based upon the '03-'04 season when 160 games ended in ties despite Overtime, that means there will be 160 "extra points" handed out this year. I believe that this should not be. I don't believe that if your team tunes somebody up 8-1 that it should have the same value as a team that held on for dear life down the stretch in a game and subsequently wins the Skills Competition (The Shoot-out). The three point system would work this way. Three points for a Regulation Win, two points for a Shoot-out Win, one point for a Shoot-out Loss and zero points for a regulation Win. Records for team's season point totals would have to revert to Winning Percentages of Possible Points, but it seems the only way to fairly MAKE EACH GAME worth the same number of points. Just because a game is tied doesn't mean should carry more value! Just ask the teams chasing down the stretch for a playoff spot or Division title, if you're behind on February 1st, good luck to you!

If you don't like that system because you say it would be confusing to read the standings, I ask this question. How would it be any different than the past seven years? The NHL tried to simplify its standings this season by combining the Overtime Loss/Shoot-out Loss column but many newspapers either didn't get the memo or refuse to take the bait, insisting upon still using four columns including separate ones for each extra session outcome. They should simply list the points and the points only if they wish to make it easy for the so called casual fan. Those of us who know ho to read them will have find our standing elsewhere.

Lastly, if you hate all my ideas on this subject here is one final thought that should rankle a few remaining feathers. How about either dumping overtime and going straight to the Shoot-out or no overtime or Shoot-out at all. I spent six years in the old IHL and they eventually eliminated overtime and went straight to the Shoot-out beginning in 1993 and while I thought it to be a bad idea at the time, I ended up liking it. Once again there were travel issues involved, but it saves overtime for when it REALLY means something, the Playoffs. Not to mention we play a different game in Regular Season overtime(four on four) than we do in the post-season. Just another way we confuse the casual fan. And I know you may think that I'm way too worried about the casual fan, but I thought we were trying to bring new folks INTO the fraternity. Or as I said, old time hockey with ties and everything, NO OVERTIME in regular season and NO SHOOT-OUTS at all. This will never happen though because as I said earlier, the fans love the shoot-out and they pay the bills. So let's get used to it and let's get it right. I truly believe that the NHL will make some changes to the Shoot-out and how it handles it's procedures and its results, for now I just see it as a classic case of over thinking it a bit.

In closing, the only remaining solution I have to offer is to play Shoot-outswith the winner getting two points with the loser getting nothing. Teams would play to avoid the Shoot-out or be in it and there would be no four columns in the standings, no points in the standings, just wins and losses. What a concept!

Peace, Johnny

» In Response To Eklund

» Answer to the Question

» Johnny's Little Rant