With election season in full swing in the U.S., this seemed the perfect opportunity for Sportsnet’s hockey analysts to engage in some fierce debating on the game’s greatest questions.
Five former NHL players – Nick Kypreos, Ray Ferraro, Charlie Simmer, Garry Galley, and John Garrett; five key role players – the grinder, the scorer, the sniper, the defender, and the stopper each chime in with their thoughts on where the NHL has gone wrong and why more of the same could help the game.
DEBATE: Eliminate Shootout – Yes or No and Why?
Nick Kypreos: "I would eliminate the shootout. I just don’t think it’s right that you fight for 65 minutes for one point and you lose a chance for an extra point based on the result of a skills competition. Hockey is a team game, and the shootout doesn’t promote that. If you’re going to be awarded a win, you should earn them the way they always have – by playing hockey."
Ray Ferraro: "I love the shootout. There needs to be a decision every night, and the fans love it. I would prefer, however, that there be a five minute session of 3 on 3 before the shootout. Hockey purists will never come to grips with the shootout – but that doesn’t make it a bad idea."
Charlie Simmer: "While I don’t think the shootout needs to be eliminated, there’s no chance I would ever extend it past the regular season. It certainly provides closure to a hockey game and provides excitement for both the fans and the players – but it’s no way to decide who will win the Cup."
Garry Galley: "No, keep the shootout. Although I believe the shootout has taken the excitement from seeing the actual Penalty shot it has had a more positive effect on the fans than I thought. I can live with it but believe there should not be points handed out for losses."
John Garrett: "No, the shootout is by far the most exciting part of the game today. People compare it to ending a basketball game with a slam dunk competition but even the purists have to admit that there is nothing in sports like a one-on-one dual between a shooter and a goalie."
DEBATE: Go to 4 on 4 in the playoffs for OT – Yes or No and Why?
Nick Kypreos: "I would only implement this after two overtime periods. I think it’s ridiculous that these games are going four and five overtime periods. There are some teams out there who play not to lose instead of going for it."
Ray Ferraro: "Yes, there should be the same rules for the playoffs and the regular season. There is no cheapening of the game by playing 4 on 4 or even 3 on 3. In overtime, the goal of the game remains the same whether there are 10 or 8 skaters on the ice – put the puck in the net."
Charlie Simmer: "I think 4 on 4 is great in OT in the regular season but should not be used in the playoffs because it’s the start of the chase for the Cup and every game should be played until there is a winner. If you are going to win it, win it the way that it has been won by all the great teams in the past."
Garry Galley: "Yes, I would go to 4 on 4 to decide playoff games. The game needs to be decided quicker, just look at last year. We had a snoozefest in Vancouver and Dallas, which says I’m right."
John Garrett: "The playoffs are about survival and 4 on 4 in sudden death overtime changes the game drastically. The Stanley Cup is awarded to the victor of the playoffs, that means pitting Team A’s best five skaters versus Team B’s best five skaters and playing till a winner is crowned. Playing 4 on 4 in overtime is not how the Islanders, Oilers, Penguins, Devils and Red Wings won their Cups – and it shouldn’t be how future teams earn their rings."
For more of Hockeycentral’s responses to hockey’s greatest debates, pick up the latest edition of Urban Male Magazine.
