There's been so much talk lately about changing overtime in the NHL to lessen the impact of the shootout on the league's regular-season results. And for good reason. No matter how it's spun, a shootout win simply should not have as much value as a regulation win or a victory in overtime.
And look at the impact the shootout is already having right here in the Metropolitan Division. Have you noticed five of the Washington Capitals 12 wins this year have come in the breakaway skills competition, aka, the shootout? (Pause for effect.) Five of 12. Take a quick look at the NHL standings and see where the Caps would be without those extra five points, then tell me if it's OK they're sitting in 2nd place in the division.
You've heard all the suggestions coming out of the recent NHL GM meetings. Among them is extending the overtime period to as much as 10 minutes, playing for so long four-on-four, then reducing the number of skaters to three-on-three, etc.
I would submit a simpler way to reduce the impact of the shootout: Eliminate it altogether. Say what? That's right. I love the idea put forth by NJ Devils general manager Lou Lamoriello to switch ends of the ice before the start of overtime to create the longer line changes. That in itself should provide an uptick in OT goals.
So, I would do that. But that's all I would do. I wouldn't expand the length of overtime, because I agree with Capitals GM George McPhee that teams' elite players are already averaging mid-20's to 30 minutes of time on ice as it is. You start increasing their ice time every elongated overtime session, and what do you have left for the playoffs?
No, I'd leave it at five minutes, and if the game ends in a tie, it ends in a tie. What's so God –awful about that? Some of the best OT games I've ever seen have been absolutely ruined by the shootout. It's just not fair to win – or lose – in a skills competition. So I say a well-played tie is beautiful. It was before the advent of the shootout in 2005, and it can be again.
But, you say, teams would slow things down and play just to get to the overtime to get the bonus point. Speaking of points, you bring up a good one. That's why I would add this caveat to the OT plan: If neither team scores during the extra five-minute session, each team gets a point. If a team scores an overtime goal, that team gets two points, and the loser – emphasize loser – gets nothing. Nada. Zip. Sorry, it's not squirt hockey. You lose, you lose. Not everyone gets the medal.
What if both teams in overtime simply play not to lose? What if they play the basketball version of a four-corner offense to make sure they survive OT and get the single point? In other words, what if both teams stop trying to win?
Then a pox on both of their houses, and may fans be savvy enough to see right through that charade and make their discretionary spending choices accordingly. The very idea of that should have teams all tied up in knots.
