Thursday, October 30, 2008

WCHA on Shootouts.

This was over on INCH. I agree with the article that eventually the NCAA is going to settle ties via the shootout just like they do in the NHL. I agree with Joe Bertagna its coming eventually. Of course it will be fun, yet predictable to see the anti-shoot out people come out of the wood work to complain about the shootout being a gimmick.
INCH on the shootout: I would’ve hated to travel 13 hours one way and 14 hours home to lose in a shootout,” said Owens, who has plenty of shootout experience from years of coaching in the USHL. “The only value it adds is entertainment for the fans. You can play a great road game, earn a 2-2 tie, lose in a shootout and feel like you lost the game. We went to Clarkson, a tough road trip, and came away with a split. And I’m fine with that.”

The CCHA, along with the women’s leagues in Hockey East and the WCHA, are using shootouts to settle tie games this year. And some college hockey higher-ups - most notably Hockey East commissioner Joe Bertagna - have predicted to INCH that shootouts are going to be the normal tiebreaker in all of college hockey within a few years. But for now, many are watching closely to see how they affect the CCHA standings.

Even after his team won a shootout with Air Force in a holiday tournament last season, Minnesota coach Don Lucia is a vocal opponent of the procedure. He notes that the CCHA is only using them for standings purposes, and that games tied after five minutes of overtime still count as a tie for NCAA purposes. Lucia told INCH that if shootouts are such a great idea, he feels the CCHA should have the courage to let the results (win or lose) count for NCAA purposes.

The entertainment value of the shootout is noted by Denver coach George Gwozdecky, He thinks they’re fine in the NHL, where you play 84 games that count, but feels that in a 28-game WCHA schedule, too much emphasis could be placed on the results of shootout. Gwozdecky said he also hates the idea of playing a team game for 65 minutes, then deciding who wins or loses with a contest that pits two individuals against one another.


  1. Hell that was easy, you guys actually have the Shootout already and coach Kyle of the Wildcats hates it. Seems Red like it.

  2. I'm definitely in the against it crowd. I've seen them, since the NAHL uses them, and while I find them interesting I still am against them.

    I've never understood people's dislikes for ties. If two teams are so close a tie makes sense. Especially so during the regular season

    In games where a winner is absolutely needed (playoffs) and a couple of overtimes are needed, then I could understand using shootouts, like they do during the World Cup. I dislike shootouts during the World Cup, but at least it's a must have a winner situation. Playing infinite sudden deaths would be make more sense, like during the Stanley Cup playoffs.

    What I don't understand is why people are so gung-ho about how great shootouts are, but don't want them in the playoffs. It basically loses their argument for them.

    This all being said, there's many worse things that could happen to the sport than deciding to use shootouts. All teams going to the same templates like the NHL did, would certainly be one.