Does Hockey need a clear winner - no ties?

**ChrisFrez** · 11-08-2001, 10:47 AM

There is a big article on ESPN.com here

http://espn.go.com/nhl/columns/frei_terry/1273737.html

Do you agree that there should be a clear cut winner at the end of a hockey game? If so, what would you recommend the league doing to elimate ties.

**P.J Stock** · 11-08-2001, 10:54 AM

Ive always been a fan of the Shootout!

Count Cane · 11-08-2001, 10:23 PM

Yes I think every game should have a winner. I would like to see a 5 minute 5 on 5 OT and if no one wins then a shootout. 1 point would still be awarded to the losing team.

**cASe SenSiTive** · 11-09-2001, 08:14 AM

Shootouts are LAME! Do they decide tie ballgames with a home run contest?

Ties are part of the game. But please, get rid of the stupid extra point for an OT loss. If you lose, you don't deserve any points.

**P.J Stock** · 11-09-2001, 04:44 PM

Shootouts are exciting

**ken_valyi** · 11-10-2001, 01:23 PM

They've changed the rules for the regular season so many freaking times I can't keep track (and hey, it's not all Gary Bettmans fault either).

Do I think fans would love to see their favourite superstars decide a tie game in a shootout - Hell Yes!

My only concern is it turning hockey into an ESPN2 sport - all flair, no substance. Then again, how would a fan feel leaving a tight-checking, neutral zone trapped yawner if instead of it ending in a tie after another five minutes of boredom, he got to feel the rush of a five aside shootout. Ticket sales would only go up!

As long as they don't mess with the play-offs (which are the most exciting games in sports!) I'm cool with a shootout in the regular season.

**cASe SenSiTive** · 11-12-2001, 09:36 AM

I'll say it again... Shootouts are bush league!

**_NITEBREED_** · 11-12-2001, 03:54 PM

Ties su** and I dont think you can ever TIE any game IMHO. You win or lose this extra point has been as bad as the stupid Blue puck back on FOX. Another stupid Idear to kill the game.

You win you should get the Point - The only points. You should get nothing for losing in OT.

And as for GARY and his NBA chit - Its sad even if the sport went bellyup he would just move on to another sport ( I.E. Golf needs more viewers).

I would have picked a PLAYER that played and knows the game not pick a FAN to run the show............

A team can win lets say only 10 games in the season and Tie more then 75% of the rest and make it into the playoffs. Sad Sad.

Bring back the old ways and screw the MEDIA hogs trying to introduce new fans - They will start to lose the ones they have now If all the rules start changing.

Plus with the way they are calling the game now You cant sneeze on the ice without getting a suspention for not using your hanky.
If they are going to suspend players they they should at least try to give out the same amount for the same things.

**Darth Xed** · 11-13-2001, 01:51 PM

I don't like ties, BUT...

I don't think you should end a 60 minute contest with something that is almost non-related to the original game... for that reason, I don't think shootouts are the answer.

To be honest, I don't even like the 4-on-4, though I guess it's a happy medium.

If you play 60 mionutes 5-on-5 (not counting penalties) why should the game be determined by a 4-on-4 OT?

The reason they did the 4-on-4 and the OT Loss point, was to encourage teams to go after that winning goal, and not be as scared to lose. But I think it confused new/casual fans, and could turn them away from the game...