The SBP Archives - Your less than frequent dose of SBP!

I know I'm going to probably upset a lot of traditionalists out there, but after hearing about last night's Vancouver-Dallas tilt where it took four overtimes to decide it (and with less than 2 minutes to go, it was nearly heading for a fifth overtime), you have to ask yourself if the league is better off settling the contest in a quicker fashion so that a game doesn't last until 3am.

It doesn't make any sense that the extra time lasts longer than regulation. If you can't determine a winner after 60 minutes, and an additional 60 minutes is played and there's still no winner, isn't it time to shut 'er down? And really, ask yourself, how many of these multiple OT contests have you actually sat down and watched from start to finish? If a game is on in the west coast like yesterday's game, regulation would have it end around 12:30am EST. With full overtime, this game lasted until around 3:00am. With a full time job, kids, and the fact that it wasn't a weekend, you're not watching the whole thing. It was reported that even many of the 18,000+ in attendance had already left the game before it ended. Think about it: Paying customers decided to leave before a conclusion was reached. It could have been the most exciting 140 minutes of hockey ever played, but if no one is around to watch it, who cares?

The toll on the players isn't exactly fair, either. There will be a day where one of these marathon sessions last until 8am. What if the games are back-to-back, and they're expected back at the rink in less than 12 hours, or worse, they have to hop a plane and play in a different city? How sluggish will the players skate? How good will the hockey be? Traditionalists might say this reveals the true character and endurance of a team, but lousy scheduling isn't their fault. No one expects them to play for so long, and ultimately the oddball marathon overtime game can cost an entire season for a squad that may have taken years to become a legitimate contender.

I propose this: If a game isn't decided in regulation, play a full 20 minute overtime. If no one scores in that, let's play a 10 minute 4-on-4. If that doesn't work out, I'm going to say a bad word, let's go to a SHOOTOUT, and get ourselves a winner. The reasons why:

1. It's already so close, so if the better team can only be determined by the slimmest of margins, let's end it in five minutes instead 500.

2. It's fair to the players. They can still say they played a hard game, but be rested enough to continue to play their best for their upcoming contests.

3. People will watch it. 95% of the audience won't be asleep by the time period five arrives. Like I said, if there's no one watching, there's no point.

4. It's dramatic, exciting hockey. A shootout is a one-on-one performance instead of a team effort, true, but with my suggestion, they've already played 90 minutes as a team and couldn't solve anything. Time to end the game (and in exciting fashion, I can guarantee you no one will be heading for the exits) and move on to the next.

Thoughts?