Across all sports, the purpose of overtime is simple: to extend a game past regulation until a winner is found. In every other sport, this is done in a simple, fair manner that minimally modifies the game. In baseball, you play extra innings until a team is winning at the end of an inning. In basketball, you play extra periods of five minutes. Why does hockey have to be different?

The case against shootouts has been made numerous times, and for good reason: the shootout accomplishes none of these aforementioned objectives of overtime, save finding a winner.

Shootouts have never been, and never will be, a fair way to end a game. Shootouts completely ignore the defensive side of the game. There is no teamwork, no physicality, and no strategy. Shooters rely on dekes that players would never have the space or time to execute in actual play. In most shootouts, only 4 players from each team contribute to the play. An overtime system that focuses on a small portion of the game and is played by a small fraction of the players is simply inadequate.

The numbers back up this argument. Of the five teams at the bottom of the NHL standings at the end of the last season, all actually excelled in shootouts. All had winning records in shootouts, winning a combined 35 of 60 of their games that ended in shootouts. In comparison, these five teams won a measly 32% of all their games. Assuming that regulation hockey is a fair indicator of the strength of a hockey team, clearly, shootouts are not.

Some may argue that shootouts are, although unfair, an exciting way to end a hockey game that appeals to non-hockey fans and might help drive an increased following of the NHL. Although it is true that attendance numbers have increased by 4% per game since the implementation of shootouts in the 2004-2005 NHL Season, this could have been due to any of the major changes implemented during that season. And shootouts may be exciting on their own, but in comparison to the overtimes they precede, they are a major letdown.

Think about the greatest games in NHL history and how they ended. Without a doubt, most of these games ended in overtime, and very few, if any, ended in shootout. Sudden death overtime is the pinnacle of excitement across all sports. Each play has the chance to end in swift triumph or disaster. Shootouts are a terrible excuse for entertainment because they end an exciting overtime. One cannot garner any excitement for a system that is the decisive terminator of excitement.

Because of their lack of integrity and entertainment, shootouts have no place in professional hockey. But at the moment, the rate at which they end games is spiraling out of control. Of all regular season games last season, 14% went to a shootout, including 58% of overtime games. Over 170 games last year ended in a skills competition. These numbers are completely ridiculous and warrant the advent of a new overtime system.

A simple option is to extend the overtime period to ten minutes of 4-on-4 hockey. There are two main arguments against increasing the length of overtime. It might increase the risk of injuries near the end of the game because the players are tired. In addition, teams that play a longer overtime game might be at a physical disadvantage if they were playing another game the next day. Although this could perhaps have a significant impact if every overtime game added an extra half an hour to the end of a game as it does in soccer, an extra five minutes would have minimal effects. Assuming 25% of games continue to go to shootout, even if each overtime game requires a full ten minutes, this proposition will only add a maximum of 2% worth of playing time to a team’s overall season.

Given this data point, one could reasonably extend overtimes even further. A full period of overtime play would end most games without having to resort to alternative methods. Most games would not require the entire period to find a winner, and for those that do, the NHL could remove back-to-back games as not to put those teams playing in extended games at a disadvantage.

In addition to an extended overtime period, 3-on-3 play could further remove the need to resort to a shootout. Removing an extra player from each side would guarantee fast overtime goals, especially if offside rules were removed as well. A ten minute overtime period of 4-on-4 hockey followed by a ten minute period of 3-on-3 hockey would be almost sure to result in a goal. Under this system, coaches who currently try to prolong the overtime to make it to a shootout would be out of luck. It would be too difficult to try to extend a game that long, and they would hence be forced to play the game normally, freeing up scoring even more.

After an extended overtime, ties could and should be brought back into the game. Why use an artificial gimmick, which is in no way more fair than a coin toss, to decide a game that has already been played out to a deadlock? Some fans might be disappointed by the lack of closure that this would provide, but if ties only occurred after twenty minutes of overtime, one would not expect more than three or four ties per team in an entire season.

Another alternative that would end games faster without any chance of a tie or shootout is the power-play shootout. Unlike its namesake, the power-play shootout focuses on real hockey, specifically, special teams hockey. Teams would alternate power plays until a team scores. If the team that defended first were to score, that team would win; otherwise, the other team would get a chance to tie the game back up. Short-handed goals would win the game automatically for the team that scores it. If a winner is not found after a few such innings of power plays, the system could be sped up by first making the power plays 4-on-3, then 5-on-3. Although this system is certainly somewhat gimmicky in its own right, not only does keep most of the integral parts of hockey, but more importantly, it also completely eliminates ties and shootouts.

With these alternatives to the shootout enumerated, the only remaining issue to deal with is the “loser point”. Awarding teams who lose in overtime half a win creates numerous problems for the game and the standings. The risk of losing is diminished in overtime with the safety net created by the loser point. It alters the importance of games, as overtime games are worth three points overall, not two. This encourages playing defensive near the end of a tied third period because, in overtime, there are more points up for grabs. Most importantly, it suggests that overtime is not a fair way of deciding the winner because, at that point, only half a win is up for grabs.

If the method of determining a winner in overtime is fair, then a win should be worth a win, no matter what, and no points should ever be awarded to a team that loses a game. If ties must be brought back as well, then the NHL should switch over to the soccer points system: three points for a win, one point for a draw. This will encourage teams to go for a win instead of playing defensive and hoping for a draw.

This debate inevitably resurfaces at each GM meeting, and although they keep postponing change on the issue, eventually, something will have to be done. Eventually, it will come time for the NHL to confront issues with the shootout head-on. And at that time, the NHL must not be afraid put it out of its misery.