And the tie goes to....

The NHL has approved a new tie breaker proposal, put forth by the GM's back in March. As it formerly stood, the initial tie break was total wins. In a sense it still is, but the big change now is from total wins to Regulation/OT non shootout wins first. So now i have to ask, why have a shootout?

If the shootout has no real inherent value, why use it? Why don't we go back to wins losses and ties? We can still keep the overtime loss if it seems fair. I understand the point of having the overtime loss point, as it, in theory, gives teams more incentive to go for the win in OT rather than waiting for the shootout since you'll be guaranteed a point. What I don't understand now is with the shootout being even less important, what point is there in keeping it? Now I've heard that supposedly the fans enjoy it, and fine give the people what they want. However I can think of at least one team who hates the shootout. I'm talking about the Rangers losing their playoffs hopes on the last game of the season, in an epic game against the Flyers. Oh how I thank Jolli Jokinen from the bottom of my heart for that collapse. Personal allegiances aside, hockey is a team game. When everyone is out there competing, why do the skill players have to be the ones who win/lose it for their teams? The history of the game is rich with stories of unlikely heroes, in the cup finals no less, but the regular season has to go to the "stars"? I call bullshit.

So while I somewhat agree with the direction of the league, I still have to question why they do things. Sure the shootout is enjoyable, until it actually matters. Then your team is hanging on whether or not your go to guy pulls a Charlie Conway and nails the triple deke, or pulls a Gordon Bombay and hits the post. Yes I made a Mighty Ducks reference. It fits, because it's that ridiculous. And just because I'm a nice guy....