ESPN.com’s EJ Hradek, reported that on Sept. 14, the NHL’s Board of Governors is expected to approve a rule change to supposedly minimize the shootout’s impact on standings. The rewarding of points for shootout or overtime losers is a bit like changing the luck factor in poker by awarding hands to the player who was ahead at the point and time all the money went into the pot or giving them part of the pot. Doesn’t make sense in Online Poker and it doesn’t make sense in Hockey to give the loser something.
That being said, there is a problem in hockey, and hockey recognizes it, but they don’t go far enough to do something about it. One of the first to mention the possibility of a new rule, as early as last March, was Columbus GM Scott Howson. Howson suggestion was to change the first tiebreaker from total wins to just regulation and overtime wins - with the exclusion of shootout wins. This on one hand makes sense, as they are a very arbitrary and at times luck-filled way to decide a game. On the other hand it seems like a half-assed, empty gesture to the underlying problem.
Right now the rule change simply doesn’t go far enough. As it stands, shootouts wins will continue to factor in the computation of points. Altering the tiebreaker will only change the standings in the event of a tie, obviously, but leaving them in the standings will prevent ties. Doesn’t make sense, but then again this is a league that rewards a team for losing a game. Yes, the NHL gives points to teams that lose in OT or a shootout but not regulation. That’s still points for losing. The rationale for doing so is they used to give points for ties. The losing teams in essence are rewarded for tying in regulation not for losing after it. However
The fact that the league is willing to partially recognize this problem but not accept it full bore is kind of mind blowing. In EJ Hradek’s report, Ken Holland of the Detroit Redwings said this rule would put more of an emphasis on the regulation or overtime minutes the game. Not really. Because of the two ties last year (Philadelphia and Montreal and non-playoff teams Carolina and Tampa Bay) neither would have been settled by excluding shoot-out wins.
Even if this first tiebreaker was enacted last season, the standings in the Eastern Conference would not have changed at all - and would not have impacted either of the two ties in the standings.
Other ideas have been floated as solutions to the shootout win probably. Again, the league acknowledges the problem of the shootouts wins by seeking to eliminate them from the tiebreaker (but refuses to change the standings and rules as whole). Why not lose a player from both teams every minute of overtime. This goes a step futher than one of the suggestions the league is facing which would involve pulling players. To go full bore would not only would solve the problem of shootouts in all but the rarest of games, it would also incredibly spice things up and put some individual skills on display. Instead of lamenting overtime, fans might be on the edge of the seat in expectation of it.
Imagine if the goalies were going head to head to decide the game as their teammates and the world watched. Probably the better strategy would be to pull the goalie earlier but would some teams pull him second or third or fourth. Perhaps, the league could mandate the two goalies would have to be the last two standing. It’s fun enough in a hockey fight when the goalies square off against one another imagine if they’d actually half to skate the length of the rink a couple of times to decide the game.
