The Shoot Lock-Out Affair.

Oh dear. Canada's greatest obsession (no not public health) is about to explode into national debate again - hockey. The issue: Should hockey enact shoot-outs to determine a game? Aside from the bizarre fact that hockey finds itself in a frivolous mess with the lock-out, the shoot-out is a compelling idea but a misguided one in my opinion.

The shoot-out is akin to Jessica Simpson being on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine. It's all about selling out to a mass audience. We pander to the lowest common denominator now. To be fair, there are many legitimate hockey finds and experts who like the idea. On a business level, not that any hockey analyst or expert no much about the intricacies of business despite their sometimes subtle condescending tone, the shoot-out is a no-brainer. It'll sell. But at what cost, on a subjective level, to the game?

Some call it progress. As if this idea is a sealed mark of progress. Instead, this debate arises because hockey, on a fundamental level, is not doing so well. It needs tinkering. Because, like human nature, we take so long to make the necessary changes for whatever reasons, we find ourselves scrambling to regain any fans lost to the lock-out and the state of the game in terms of entertainment value. The shoot-out idea is a band-aid answer in a contemporary framework. Ten years from now it will cease to be relevant for which it was intended. The shoot-out is a pretty lame way to decide a team oriented sport.

Soccer provides some insights as to what hockey can expect down the road. Legendary player's and great games will be determined, hence scarred, by the fact they were part of a shoot-out. Soccer's history since 1976 has not always seen the best team win as a result of the shoot-out.

As for the individual athlete, it will be a shame to watch a stellar career be wiped out in an instance. The text book example of this is the case of Roberto Baggio. One of the greatest player's ever thanks to his sublime skills, Baggio will only be remembered for this 'miss' in 1994 against Brazil. Is this fair?

People will argue that everyone remembers Nagano. True enough, but for the wrong reasons. Nagano is many things to many people including the failure to have Wayne Gretzky take a shot at the net. People have short attention spans and short historical memories. The memory of Nagano is infamy an this is not a good thing.

Rather than cosmetically tinker with the game, the NHL would be rise to work on the 60 minutes designated to entertain us. Heck, why not just go straight to a shoot-out? Why bother with a team oriented game based on strength and endurance to have it determined by flashes of skill? If they fail to entertain (and they have), to a fan like myself, I couldn't care less about the shoot-out. It's all so, well, cheap. Like drooling babbling baboons the shoot-out is designed to pique the interest of the casual fan and not the purist.

Like anything in life, history tries to balance tradition with modernity, the shoot-out is not a modern solution to a traditional game. Just a marketing answer to a problem largely created by a poorly designed business structure.

In the end, the proponents of the shoot-out will be right. In the end, the owners pockets will deepen as a result but hockey, without debate, will lose a piece of its spirit much like soccer has.

I began with comparing the shoot-out with Rolling Stone magazine. Once upon a time, Rolling Stone was the raison d'etre in rock'n roll journalism. Like any business that enters a low revenue cycle, it needed to sell more magazines. In order to do so, they had to go outside the box. That meant entering the dark side of mainstream appetites.

They made a sound business decision but what was the intangible and immeasurable cost?