In Praise of Tie Games?

One of my favourite columnists is Andrew Potter at Macleans, and he offers this review of philosophy professor Daniel Weinstock's essay in favour of returning to tie games.

Andrew Potter + Philosophy + Hockey? I'm in bliss.

That said, I have some serious issues with the conclusions drawn;

- The shootout simply is exciting to watch, and arguing that ties are somehow superior strikes me as a mugs game. The NHL is primarily about providing a service of entertainment with the act of providing practical moral philosophy a benefit far down the list of priorities for either the league or the fan (at least the fans who don't also happen to be professional moral philosophers).

- From a purely pragmatic and historic standpoint, allowing tie games lead to more boring games. Teams tied closing in on the end of regulation stop looking for the win and start playing for the tie. Ditto for OT. Was their anything more excruciating to watch than two teams trying not to lose by not playing for the win?

- The penalty shot simply is a part of the game, and is widely considered the most exciting play in hockey. Not only does settling ties with a shootout give the teams a reason to play for the win, in the event that they are tied after OT we get treated to a spectacle of entertainment that can't otherwise be purchased. I find the notion that shootouts are 'not part of the game' to be weak.

- The 'loser point' preserves some of the 'moral victory' a tie game would otherwise have provided. It ain't much, and it ain't pretty, but its still there.

- Ties in the playoffs are simply noxious. Playing till there is a winner is the only way to go. We learn more about the values of endurance, perseverance, etc. by watching an OT struggle on and on than by having it stop short after the first OT is played and calling it a draw.

- This isn't to say that tie games weren't good games. One of the commenters mentioned the Montreal v Red Army 3-3 tie as one of the best games ever. Would it have been worse if it had been settled in OT, or by a shootout after OT? Would a single fan have left because they didn't want to see Guy Lafleur take the shootout vs Tretiak?