No

by Jeffrey Weinstein

Created on: October 09, 2011

The winner of an NHL game is awarded two points in the standings. Prior to 2005, both teams would be awarded a single point if the game ended in a tie after 60 minutes of regulation time and 5 minutes of overtime. Coming out of the lockout which cancelled the entire 2004-2005 season, the NHL instituted several rule changes to appease the fans. The biggest change of all was abolishing ties and having the two teams compete in a shootout to decide a winner.

The NHL had looked at the shootout for many years, especially since several international tournaments (including the Olympic games) were already using it. There was a ground swell of NHL fans that wanted the shootout. After all, a game ending after 65 exhilarating minutes in a tie was quite anti-climactic. The ties had to go and the shootout, at the time, seemed like the best solution. The shootout certainly had its desired effect as fans all over the NHL loved the excitement and novelty of it all. However, seven years into the shootout's existence, it is time for a change. I am all for the continued abolishing of ties, but there has to be a better, more team-oriented way.

The shootout is a glorified skills competition. Imagine an NBA game decided by a slam dunk contest or a baseball game decided by a home run hitting contest. It's sacrilege to even entertain those notions. Hockey is the ultimate team sport. All five skaters on the ice during each shift must work in unison. If one player makes a mistake, no matter how trivial, it could lead to disaster. Hockey is won by great team efforts and it's lost by team-wide breakdowns. For a game in which unconditional teamwork is essential for success, to be decided by the shootout is illogical and goes against the very nature of the game.

The excitement and novelty of the shootout has, without question, started to dim. The NHL must, if they haven't already, come up with an alternative. Some people think the NHL should go to 3 on 3 for their overtimes instead of the current 4 on 4. The theory is with so much open ice, more overtime goals will be scored and there will not be the need for a shootout. Another possibility the NHL could look at is to give each team a two minute power play in overtime. The teams would keep playing until one team scores and holds the other side on their subsequent power play. It's kind of like baseball's extra innings with the visiting team getting the first PP chance and the home team has the chance to match or outright win the game if the visiting team does not score on their frame. In my view that is a much more fair, team-oriented way to decide a true winner and award that precious second point.

Just two years ago, the N.Y. Rangers and Philadelphia Flyers met on the last game of the season to decide which team would make the playoffs. It was a winner-take-all game. The game went to overtime and then the shootout. The Flyers won the shootout and sneaked into the playoffs where they went all the way to the Stanley Cup finals. The shootout should not decide which team goes home for the summer and which team goes to the finals. This ultimate team sport cannot and should not be decided by individuals. I understand why the NHL went to the shootout. They needed to give the fans whatever they wanted and, at that time, they wanted the shootout. The time has now come to find a new way to decide a winner. The NHL has great momentum with record high ratings and the revolutionary Winter Classic. Hanging onto the tired shootout might stunt the league's growth and curb the momentum. Commissioner Gary Bettman, the NHLPA, and knowledgeable journalists need to figure this out and keep the NHL moving forward towards its ultimate goal of being universally accepted in the USA and in Europe. It's a great team game; make sure it stays that way.

Learn more about this author, Jeffrey Weinstein.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.