Anybody hear Frank Deford's piece on hockey shootouts and ties in American sports on NPR this morning? His (irritating, unoriginal, and old) schtick aside, the general idea -- that Americans loath ties and want a decisive result -- rings true.
If shootouts are not an unfortunate flash in the pan but remain as a sort of Perpetual Gimmick, like the DH, I assume the Canadian juniors will instantly adopt them (they attempt to mirror NHL rles as closely as possible), and then there will be pressure on the NCAA to do the same. Less tradition-bound conferences like HE and the newbies I can see going that way quickly. The League Formerly Known as the ECAC (do we have a name, or a symbol, yet?) will be interesting; under the ancien regime it would never have happened, but maybe the new leaders will want to make a statement that this isn't your father's Oldsmobile.
Anybody think the shootout will change the composition of rosters and, hence, regulation play? I can see teams willing to have a couple of bona fide shapshooters, even devoid of defensive skills, and since they'll fill roster slots and have to get ice time, that might displace a few Mandervillian defensive forwards and generally speed up the game.
Seems to me that every team would like to get players who are natural goalscorers, regardless of team style, but there just aren't that many around. I wouldn't expect Cornell, for example, to change its style of play simply because a shootout rule was instituted. Perish the thought.
Goaltenders or goalscorers? ;-)
Is there some social/anthropological theory floating around about why ties are so awful? I feel if a team with less talent is able to hang on for the tie, they deserve the damn tie, not to get steamrolled in the shootout--especially in a low-scoring game like hockey. Something like basketball to me has always been like a sprint to the final buzzer, so I don't think ties make sense there.
One horrible Gator-football fan friend of mine made the comment to me that hockey wouldn't become mainstream unless the NHL got rid of ties and fixed things so that every game went into double-digit scores. I think I would swear off sports forever if that happened.
It's part of the general anti-intellectual trend. Ties are subtle, and therefore suspected to be gay, or at least French.
[Q]Trotsky Wrote:
Anybody hear Frank Deford's piece on hockey shootouts and ties in American sports on NPR this morning? His (irritating, unoriginal, and old) schtick aside, the general idea -- that Americans loath ties and want a decisive result -- rings true.[/q]
Here's what I had to say about it on the USCHO board:
[Q]Wow, so Frank DeFord either is an idiot or was laying it on really thick this morning. He was celebrating the NHL getting rid of ties, and singing the praises of shootouts and even the silly college football overtime system. But then we know Frank knows jack-shit about hockey.[/Q]
If ties were French, would some "patriotic" jackass have to go about renaming them "freedom ties?"
Ties never bothered me; and the shootout really doesn't bother me either.... I still watching the Sweden/Canada 1994 gold medal game that went to a shootout and the tension and anticipation were incredible..... and I didn't feel like I was missing out on anything without perpetual overtime. But with that said, there is nothing better than Stanley Cup playoff overtime games......
Regarding changing the style of play..... there was some stat somewhere about the number of ties per season, etc. I wouldn't expect teams to change too much..... the easy solution is to just win in regulation :-P
[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:
[Q2]Trotsky Wrote:
Anybody hear Frank Deford's piece on hockey shootouts and ties in American sports on NPR this morning? His (irritating, unoriginal, and old) schtick aside, the general idea -- that Americans loath ties and want a decisive result -- rings true.[/Q]
Here's what I had to say about it on the USCHO board:
[Q2]Wow, so Frank DeFord either is an idiot or was laying it on really thick this morning. He was celebrating the NHL getting rid of ties, and singing the praises of shootouts and even the silly college football overtime system. But then we know Frank knows jack-shit about hockey.[/Q]
[/q]
Wait, this guy was praising the college football OT system? That crosses a line... Despite the fact that I am not sure what to think about the shootout system (at least the losing team still gets a point), the college football OT system is horrifying. Anybody who remembers the Ole Miss- Arkansas game from 2001 can attest that the NCAA OT rule is ridiculous. The game entered overtime tied at 17...7 OTs later Ole Miss won 58-56. While I am not familar with this guy, he definitely is not a bastion of sports knowledge.
I like the college OT system, but I don't think the OT stats should count in records. The winning team's score should be increased, IMHO, by 1 point, credited to the team, thus allowing for a 1-0 football result. They could call it a "rouge." ;-)
[Q]ajec1 Wrote: [Q2]jtwcornell91 Wrote: [Q2]Trotsky Wrote: Anybody hear Frank Deford's piece on hockey shootouts and ties in American sports on NPR this morning? His (irritating, unoriginal, and old) schtick aside, the general idea -- that Americans loath ties and want a decisive result -- rings true.[/Q]
Here's what I had to say about it on the USCHO board:
[Q2]Wow, so Frank DeFord either is an idiot or was laying it on really thick this morning. He was celebrating the NHL getting rid of ties, and singing the praises of shootouts and even the silly college football overtime system. But then we know Frank knows jack-shit about hockey.[/Q][/Q]
Wait, this guy was praising the college football OT system? That crosses a line... Despite the fact that I am not sure what to think about the shootout system (at least the losing team still gets a point), the college football OT system is horrifying. Anybody who remembers the Ole Miss- Arkansas game from 2001 can attest that the NCAA OT rule is ridiculous. The game entered overtime tied at 17...7 OTs later Ole Miss won 58-56. While I am not familar with this guy, he definitely is not a bastion of sports knowledge.[/q]Well, he is an award winning sportswriter. Usually has alot of insight as well. In fact, I think he was right on about most of what he said. I personally like the college OT alot more than the pros. I'd like it even more if they would start on the 40.
As far as our OTs, well he's probably right about the general perception of ties. And as an aside, what is jack-shit, and why would we care.:-)
Shrug. It's all shit since Red Smith croaked. To win a sport writing award today, you need to have mastered grade school grammar (maybe) and shove one catch phrase into your piece per 'graph. Ahem. Just my opinion. (sweet smile)
Bob Ryan is a hack! :-P