With the news of the NHL coming back comes the news of the rules change and one of them sticks out like a sore thumb: Shootouts. Similar to my thoughts on the MLB All-Star game deciding home field advantage in the World Series, having shootouts to decide the outcome of games tied after overtime is a very exciting thing to watch, but terrible in principle.

Yes, nobody likes ties (as was so eloquently put on a Simpsons episode, "Tie, what the hell!?") But what's really wrong with them? A hockey game cannot go on indefinitely, and it rewards both teams for playing hard. It would be ideal to reward a team that can prevail, but note the emphasis on "team." Once you put in 3 guys per team to just take penalty shots, you're taking the "team" out of it, and putting the focus on individual players. Why? Because you're rewarding the team that has the faster puck-handling shooter or the better goalie.

Am I going to boycott "shootouts"? No, because it's not as drastic as with the MLB (where they don't reward the better "team", but the "team" whose league happened to have the "individuals" that played better on one particular day - now, if that's not ridiculous, I don't know what is.) But I am disappointed that they caved into popular demand, for the quick thrill. Whenever a big Olympic or World Cup game is decided by shootouts (and that goes for hockey and soccer) people seem to complain that it's not right. But now they want to make it happen day in and day out? I don't like it.

Keep the ties. It wasn't that big a deal.