Ok.. The Devils won tonite. It was great… 7 in a row! …and having Marty in net is the best thing to have in your back pocket for a shootout…. but it doesn’t mean I have to like it. Sixty-five minutes of hockey reduced to a couple of manufactured breakaways. Exciting? Yes. Rewarding? I suppose. But I’d still prefer having an endless number of 5 minute OT’s, like mini-playoff periods. The common argument of course, is that planes will be missed, or the players will tire — but isn’t that the idea? The team in better shape will be able to go farther and deeper into sudden death OT’s…as many as necessary. And if the idea is to have more penalty shots (most of us would applaud such a trend), then find more reasons to call it.
I’ll take a compromise — bring back 2 points or none for a win in either OT or the shootout, and you can keep it like it is. OT just doesn’t have the “thrill of victory” or crushing “agony of defeat” that it used to. Winning against your greatest rival in OT used to be awesome…now it’s like “ok, we got one more point than they did.” And losing in OT was like taking a stick in the gut…now it’s like “oh well, we salvaged a point so it’s not so bad” 
December 11, 2007 at 11:42 am
Amen! I’d rather stay at the game and watch 5 overtimes rather than have the game (and the points awarded) decided based on a series of glorified penalty shots. If they are worried about offense, they could go 3-on-3 after the first one or two OT’s to make sure that the game doesn’t drag on, but like you said, let the team in better shape and with the greater desire win. Make the players go for an all-or-nothing 2 points in the OT and not sit back and be comfortable in the fact that the loser at least gets a point. At least that way, teams won’t clamp down on defense towards the end of a tie game to try to force an OT, they will both be after the win and the 2 points. After all, winning is what it’s all about.