misfit said:
I don't know why ties are viewed as such a horrible part of the game in the first place. It's no the ties that are the problem, it's awarding teams for not winning, and "playing for a tie/OT". I don't feel the least bit cheated if I'm at a game and it ends in a tie as long as it's good hockey for 60 minutes. What gets to me, is when the last 20 minutes of a game is played with all 10 players in the neutral zone. I think the problem could be solved by simply not rewarding points for anything but a win. If you lose...0 points, if you tie...0 points, if you win...1/2/3(whatever number you want) points! There you go, problem solved, teams start playing to win not to simply "not lose". No need for a skills competition after every game.
I agree completely with you, which is why I suggest the NHL abandone the point system altogether for the standings. Instead, base the standings on the number of wins, not just the wins over losses.
1) It allows the teams who can finish off their opponents the most to advance into the playoffs the easiest.
2) It discourages teams from sitting back and settling for a tie, because unless they win it only hurts them.
3) It's still just as bad as now if you end up with a tie, because nothing is settled.
I think it'd change the whole mindset of the game from "can't lose" to "must win", where defense is more heavily associated with "can't lose" mentality and offense if more associated with "must win".
Back on topic, I say no to the shootout, no questions asked. I don't care who win's a shootout, but I care who wins a 60-65 minute hockey game. The two are not the same thing.