Over the last few weeks, following the four-overtime Canucks-Stars game, there has been an increasing call in pockets of the hockey media to replace multiple overtime games with shootouts.

Since the idea of these suggestions is to start discourse, I will weigh in on the topic. I hate the idea of changing playoff OT. I've grudgingly come to accept that shootouts aren't going to go away in the regular season-- I liked the old system better, but so be it. But I could never accept playoff shootouts.

Playoff marathon games are one of the best things about the sport-- a badge of honor for players, a momentum builder (or crusher) for a team, a bonding experience between fans and something both participants and fans remember for years and years. That's the way hockey is meant to be.

In a recent article on the subject, Kara Yorio of the Sporting News raised several points in favor of going to a shootout after two playoff overtimes. Her main arguments:

1) Ice quality deterioriates and players are exhausted (often taking IV fluids to keep going).

2) Multiple OTs with exhausted players on the ice isn't "real hockey" any more than a shootout.

3) During the NHL regular season, teams cannot play three nights in a row, so it shouldn't be OK to push players to play nine or more periods in three nights.

4) If the shootout is good enough to help decide which teams get to the playoffs, it should be good enough to help decide which clubs win the Stanley Cup.

5) Fans will still have special memories if there are playoff shootouts after two overtimes.


In the interest of debate, here is my take on each of the issues she raises:

1) The issue of bad ice exists to varying degrees in segments of the league throughout the season. Obviously, as the weather gets warmer in mid to late spring, the ice will get softer. I do think it's a quality control issue that needs to addressed, but adopting a shootout isn't a way around the problem.

As for the issue of player exhaustion, if you've ever noticed, intermission times often get relaxed a bit in those marathon games, refs and linesmen (who are skating the ENTIRE night) often give a little extra leeway in getting line changes out there or getting lined up for faceoffs. Team personnel will do whatever it takes to get players the fluids they need to keep them hydrated or even run out and bring in some food.

Everyone involved in those games looks out for each other as the game moves on and on, because they know they're in it together until someone finally scores.


2) Funny, but that top shelfer from the faceoff circle that Keith Primeau scored in the Flyers five-OT game with the Penguins sure looked like a real hockey play. And there was plenty of real hockey-- physical, team oriented, short-shift hockey with legit scoring chances-- played in those 1987 Capitals-Islanders or 1996 Penguins-Capitals epics. And no one felt cheated or bored during the Canucks-Stars game that prompted all this in the first place. Both clubs had their chances to win, with the rollercoaster of emotions that accompanies such games.

3) Players today train hard year-round. They are in shape-- as much as it's humanly possible-- to withstand hockey marathons, and to able to compete hard throughout the playoffs.

And while it is a good thing that NHL players (unlike those in the minor leagues) don't play three straight nights, they could if they had to. They do sometimes play four games in six nights, and that's plenty grueling.

You know how they deal with it? The teams that are truly capable of winning the Cup are often able to roll four lines and three defensive pairs, keeping players fresher over the course of the season and playoffs.

Of course, there are nights when you have to shorten your bench, but the more players who are capable of contributing on a regular basis(i.e., the more of a TEAM that a club really has), the better equipped the team is to withstand the playoff wars.

Again, that's what hockey is supposed to be-- a sport where the best team, not the best individuals, prevail in the long run.

4) This argument actually confirms the reason why many people didn't want the shootout in the regular season, because eventually people might get the idea it's OK to compromise playoff games.

Playoff shootouts exist in some European leagues and the medal round of IIHF tournaments. Most players who've gone on record say they DO NOT prefer the shootout (the Swedish league has gotten rid of shootouts entirely, scrapping them in the regular season and bringing back ties). Will they turn down shootout victories? Of course not.

But it's always a little more satisfying to win on a goal that naturally develops in the course of game play.

5) Just as many fans would find the shootout after the second OT to be a cheap, and anti-climactic way to finish the game, compared with playing until one team scores for real.


Link to Kara Yorio editorial : http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_ylt=AhNqAbp9pjqegG1mRU.Nt_h7vLYF?slug=twoovertimesintheplayoff&prov=tsn&type=lgns

Join the Discussion: » Comments » Post New Comment

» Quick Hits: Phantoms, Flyers Daily, Voracek

» Phantoms Take Game 1 vs. WBS, Farabee to Worlds

» Flyers Re-Sign Fedotov to Two-Year Contract

» Musings and Quick Hits: Flyers Power Play, Phantoms vs WBS Preview

» Quick Hits: Flyers Daily, Phantoms, TIFH