What irritates me about the 3-on-3 OT is that a win in that period essentially counts as "slightly better" than a tie in terms of the Pairwise Rankings (used to determine NCAA tournament selection/placement) — yet it counts as a win in the NCAA record books. 

Since this has gone into effect, you'll find fans of bubble teams saying, "But we beat [insert team here] in OT..."

But the way it is weighted, it's essentially a tie. 

And while the shootout is exciting, it only has meaning in terms of conference points (it means nothing as it regards the NCAA), and fans get confused thinking their team won (or lost) a game when it goes down as a tie for both teams (since the 3-on-3 period is what determines things).

So Jim's concept of a 5-on-5, 10-minute OT period to determine the winner or loser (or end in a draw) would be a better method, as far as I am concerned...

Ed, I don't agree with your assessment in the global view.

Specifically, soccer. They CAN add extra time. But in Europe, that is reserved for Cup matches that do, in fact, NEED a winner.

Curling has an easy to attain tiebreaker. An extra end is almost guaranteed to determine a winner -- you don't play for a blank in the 10th or 11th ends. You play for the win and are almost guaranteed it.

Racing has winners, though what's wrong with a dead heat? Do you want to get me started on why the f*** NAPCAR has PLAYOFFS?

Ed wrote:

First you would have to convince me that NASCAR is a real sport and not staged like professional wrestling.