Let me first say, I actually like shootouts. Yeah, I know, it’s not the best way to end the game, but it’s exciting and I like it- though I actually like the AHL’s version better with 5 shooters vs. 3.
Having said that, I don’t like the fact that losing teams come away with a point in shootout games. Why?
Because it actually rewards a team’s lack of finishing ability.
Let me explain. What do you usually hear when games end regulation in a tie?
“Each team earned a point.”
Fine. They then play 5 more minutes and each team still comes away with a point. Therein lies the problem.
The purpose of overtime is for the team with the most guts and gumption to put away the other team. If a team can’t do it, they don’t deserve to be rewarded with a point, especially if they lose in the pseudo-chaotic arena of the shootout (which, as I said before, I actually like).
So this is my solution: If you make it out of regulation with a tie, fine, you get a point. But if you don’t win in OT, both teams lose the point. The MOST a team can then get for the game is one point. So the breakdown is as follows:
Win in Regulation- 2 points
Tie at end of regulation – 1 point each team
Win in OT – two points total for winner, one for loser.
Tied at end of OT – Teams lose the one point they earned during regulation. Zero points for either team
Winner of Shootout – One total point for winner, none for loser.
So what do you think? Would it make OT more exciting and make teams want to win? Heck, teams might pull goalies in OT to get two points instead of one.
Oh, and the AHL still not video reviewing goals? A college game on tv had video review and the AHL can’t do it? What gives?