The shootout: The most memorable part of the 1998 Nagano Olympics. The most exciting part of the 2003 All-Star Game. A proven fan favorite.

Naturally, NHL general managers hate it.

	Subscribe at thehockeynews.com.

But that's par for the course for these guys; year after year, GM meetings consider all avenues to improve the game, only to dismiss many of them outright. Their latest meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., following the 2003 All-Star weekend, produced no official recommendations for change, merely a promise to revamp the size restrictions of goalie equipment in the summer.

In other words, nothing especially earth-shattering, at a point in league history where attendance numbers are trending downwards and bankruptcy announcements are becoming a monthly occurrence. Then there's the annual amnesia-palooza also known as the crackdown on obstruction, currently clinging to life on a ventilator at an arena near you.

Indeed, all is not as it should be, but you wouldn't know it by listening to the GMs, who continue to defend the current product as if it had been handed down to them via a lakeside ceremony involving a scimitar.

Leading the charge was Vancouver GM Brian Burke, who drew a line in the sand regarding the notion of shootouts deciding regular season games:

"No, no, for God's sake, no," he said. "To me, it's no different than the NFL deciding games by throwing footballs through a tire. As long as I'm in charge of Vancouver we won't vote for it."

Quite the macho, open-minded assertion from Mr. Burke, and one that perfectly captures the one-legged tortoise mentality GMs have when it comes to modifying the game. For years, GMs -- who, it should be noted, only have the power to recommend changes to the league's Board of Governors for approval -- have weighed the pros and cons of, among other things, removing the red line, larger ice surfaces, mandatory visors, and adopting the no-touch icing rule. Each one has some real benefits; each one was rejected in favor of the status quo.

	“	To me, it's no different than the NFL deciding games by throwing footballs through a tire. ”
		— Brian Burke, Canucks general manager

Burke's protests are particularly interesting. Forget that his analogy is apples-and-oranges -- last time we checked, tires didn't have oversized pads and a blocker and catcher. Forget the promise of fans sticking around for a shootout means more concession sales for owners. Instead, consider that Burke has been openly campaigning for a Canadian national lottery that would include gambling on NHL games (the proceeds of which would go to assist Canada's struggling franchises.) The man has no trouble getting past the unseemly social ramifications attached to betting, but suggesting a way to avoid tie games? It's like you took off your white glove and slapped him across the face with it.

And that's really what's at the heart of the pro-shootout argument: the demise, once and for all, of the dreaded, dry-as-desert tie game.

All you need to know about the tie is what the NFL -- and the Las Vegas odds makers who lubricate the league's popularity -- think of it: Simply put, there is no betting on a tie. (This from a league where bets are placed on coin tosses, cheerleader cleavage, and the degree of stupidity of Terry Bradshaw's next sentence.) Yes, the NFL is the only other major sport besides the NHL whose games can end without a winner. But have you seen football fans leaving the stadium after a tie? The looks on their faces would make you think someone dropped a stink-bomb down their shorts. In the NFL, ties happen by accident (they've had just three in the last decade.) In the NHL, they're expected, and that's a major strategic error.

"Perhaps there are other ways to decide a game," you argue. "What about unlimited sudden-death overtime, or 3-on-3 play after the first extra frame?"

Both are intriguing concepts. Neither is the answer. NHL teams can't continue to play until there is a winner; charter flights and deteriorating ice conditions preclude it. And 3-on-3 play is even more of a gimmick than the detractors of the shootout claim it to be.

Those who contend the shootout tosses aside the previous 65 minutes of team play in favor of specialized offensive skills are, in a sense, correct. However, the shootout positions one team's top offensive weapons against another team's last line of defense. That's a fair-enough mix. Plus, soccer has adopted the shootout, and its 918 billion fans don't seem to mind a lick; they're too busy enjoying the drama of the moment, debating who should be attempting to score, and critiquing the goalie's performance, to notice.

That's the best part of the shootout: for all the controversy it creates, it makes for long-term, passionate water-cooler talk, something every pro league craves. Apparently, NHL GMs are of the mind set fans are burning up talk radio lines and message boards with cherished memories of scoreless draws.

	“	I know I'll probably get criticized for saying it, but it's one of the most exciting things in sports ”
		— Rick Dudley, Panthers general manager

Can you imagine how thrilling it would be to see a playoff positioning decided by a shootout? Can you imagine the excitement of seeing one (or more) team's postseason plans living or dying on the performance of its best players? That's the kind of ending guaranteed to have fans throughout the league talking about it for years.

But no, no, for God's sake, no, the GMs won't have any of it. If they were as reticent in signing free agents as they are towards altering the game, we might not have Donald Audette pulling in seven figures to ride the bus in the American League.

Every sport has adjusted to the changes in its audience. The NBA brought in the 3-point line to add a different dimension to the game; baseball adopted the designated hitter, and football allowed for coaches to challenge officials' calls. Hockey's brightest minds, meanwhile, only dig their heels in deeper, content with the notion they're protecting the integrity of the game.

Problem is, the game has no innate "core" to protect. Hockey is a game, a collection of arbitrary rules spliced together for the enjoyment of the fans. And just as the game of Monopoly has adjusted to the ultra-competitive board game market by creating different versions to hold people's interest, so too must the NHL re-establish its position in the sports industry by continuing to evolve.

Although the traditionalists rule the roost when it comes to shootouts, there are signs the mind set is changing.

"I know I'll probably get criticized for saying it, but it's one of the most exciting things in sports," said Panthers boss Rick Dudley, the only GM other than Thrashers head honcho Don Waddell to publicly support the concept. "I've watched it 1,000 times and I've seen IHL games where there were 20-some shooters before a decision was made, when not a single person in the building wasn't standing, cheering and nervous, including all the participants."

You can bet the same can't be said for watching a football go through a tire.

E-mail Adam Proteau at aproteau@thehockeynews.com.

Material from The Hockey News.
To subscribe, visit The Hockey News web site at: http://www.thehockeynews.com