The Shootout: If It's Broke, Fix It

Mason Raymond employing the controversial spin-o-rama.

After the 2005 lockout, the NHL knew that it needed to do something to attract more fans. They looked at other leagues around North America, saw the skill and pageantry on display in the shootout, and decided to add it at the end of tie games. That's right, no more ties, a winner, a loser, and every body's happy. Right?

Well, eight years is more than enough time to tell how much the shootout has affected the game. Some friends and I were having a discussion recently, and nearly all of them felt the shootout should be abolished. "It's just a skills competition! It's unfair to teams without top end talent! It makes overtime meaningless! It affects team's playoff positioning!", were their common complaints, views shared by many other fans and media around the hockey world. I, however, am not of the opinion that the shootout needs to be abolished. I just think that if it's broke, fix it.

I'll address the last complaint first, that it affects team's playoff positioning. Well duh, of course it does. So do injuries, power plays, missed penalty calls, etc etc. That's the reality of hockey and the shootout isn't going anywhere, so deal with it. The surprising season the Blue Jackets are having shouldn't be worth any less, and their playoff position any less assured because they have 5 shootout wins. And should the Jackets, for example, finish tied for 8th, then it's regulation wins that break the tie in the standings. Problem already solved.

But does it make overtime meaningless? Kind of.

Along with the new rule changes following the lockout, there was also a change in the point systems. Previously each team was awarded one point each in the standings at the end of overtime, for a tie game. However that changed, and now teams only need to be tied after regulation in order to get their point. This creates an imbalance. The solution is simple, don't award any points until overtime is completed, just like the system used to be. This would encourage more teams to go for the extra point in the third period and overtime instead of just waiting for the end of regulation, as happens so often. People often say that the overtime itself needs to change, and they are partially correct, but not for the reason they think they are.

Two other phrases that are often brought up are that there should be 3 on 3 overtime following 4 on 4 to break ties, and that the shootout is unfair because it's a skills competition. I have a big problem with this, as those arguments seem counter-intuitive. How is 3 on 3 any less of a skills competition, or any more fair to the lesser skilled team? It's not, they are one and the same. However the solution to this "problem" is again simple: 4 on 4 for ten minutes, 5 man shootout. Done.

A ten minute 4 on 4 period is more likely to determine a winner before the shootout than the current system. Additionally, with teams having to reach deeper into their bench rather than just rolling the same 3 pairs of forwards for 5 minutes, it gives the deeper teams an advantage. Same with the 5 man shootout, it's not just your 3 all-stars or shootout specialists taking shots. This appeases those who say it takes away from the team aspect of determining a winner.

So no points awarded until after a ten minute, 4 on 4 overtime, and a 5 man shootout to determine the winner. There, fixed. Wasn't that hard either.

Any thoughts or comments? As always, feel free to get involved with the conversation, and share if you like my content. No snap shots, as that article yesterday covered most of the things I would add to this part of the post, but I still have some gif fun for you. Here's Corey Perry being his usual self and employing some unique defensive strategy against Jamie McGinn: