HOCKEY: The Shootout Controversy ... Is It A Win Or Is It Not A Win

BIG RAPIDS - Ah, if only I had $20 for every time I've had a conversation recently about whether the Central Collegiate Hockey Association's shootouts are a good thing or a bad thing.

Frankly, I am still a bit undecided though I tend to like sticking with the traditional approach to a lot of sports. On the other hand, I supported Interleague play in Major League Baseball and I still maintain it was the right move for the sports (some so-called traditionalists would probably continue to disagree with me). But, Interleague play probably is another topic for another time and perhaps even a different forum.

One of the questions I've been pondering of late is whether a shootout win is truly a win.

For a good number of people I've heard from, the shootout is kind of a circus attraction that takes away from the game. For others, however, it's that last little bit of excitement that brings some sense of conclusion (a winner and a loser) to every contest.

Ties in sports really bother me (even if both teams have played to a standstill and it seems like an appropriate end in some ways).

Here is an article from the NHL.com about CCHA going to this shootout system:

The Central Collegiate Hockey Association is taking a page from the NHL's rulebook, becoming the first NCAA Division I college hockey conference to institute the shootout. Unlike the NHL, the CCHA is sticking with a five-minute, 5-on-5 overtime period prior to the shootout. The NHL plays five minutes of 4-on-4 before heading to the tie-breaking shootout.

Like the NHL, the CCHA's shootout is going to feature a best-of-three format for shooters before extending to a sudden-death portion. And, like the NHL, both teams are guaranteed a point for reaching the tie-breaker. The shootout winner gets an extra point.

The implementation of the shootout is expected to generate excitement for CCHA fans.

"I think the shootout is going to be really good for the fans and the game," said Michigan assistant coach Mel Pearson. "As a fan, when I watch NHL games it adds something to the game and it obviously breaks the ties. "I think fans want to see more excitement in the game and this should generate that. We polled a lot of the players and they like it. They like the concept of it. They liked that it breaks the ties. We are one of the few collegiate sports that still has ties. It declares a winner and a loser and that's what the players like."

Yeah, ties don't sit well with a lot of people. In the same article, another opinion is offered from a key voice in the CCHA:

CCHA Commissioner Tom Anastos also is not a fan of ties, but added practical considerations -- length of game and deteriorating ice conditions - played a part in the decision to go to the tie-breaking option.

"My opinion is I'm not a big fan of ties," Anastos said. "I like to see a game and I like to see a result. One of the criticisms of the shootout is that you are putting a team sport in the hands of individuals and people say you wouldn't have a free-throw competition to decide a basketball game; but the reality is that it's hard to continue to extend the game because time is more of a factor. The ice conditions are certainly a factor in what you do. "If you do want to see ties broken in some manner then this is proven to be an entertaining way to do so."

Obviously, those are two opinions in favor of shootouts. Here is one against it:

Despite its popularity with the fans, there are some who aren't in favor of the shootout -- such as Ohio State coach John Markell.

"I've gone through a couple in tournaments where you lose a couple and it still feels like a loss," Markell said. "Even though you get one point it still feels like a loss."

Markell feels that deciding games by the breakaway contest isn't the fairest way to settle a tie and rewards players that might be more one-dimensional, allowing them to excel in the shootout.

"There's going to be specialty players that can put the puck in the net," Markell said. "There's guys here in Columbus with the Blue Jackets that can do it in the shootout but can't do it during the game."

I've noticed a trend of people who are putting sort of an asterisk by shootout wins - as if to say they are not real wins. Some writers are putting quotation marks around shootout wins as if to imply they are not legitimate wins.

If you win the shootout then you win the shootout. It is a shootout win - no asterisks or quotes.

The argument is whether winning the CCHA's shootout means winning the game. My answer is a simple, but strong one: NO. Winning the shootout means something extra as far as points, for the CCHA's standings, but beyond that it is simply a tie.