Ann Arbor — I left Saturday's hockey game against Michigan feeling a little empty. Maybe even a little unsatisfied.

And it wasn't because I was disappointed by the Spartans' performance — far from it. A 3-3 tie against the top-ranked team in the nation? I'll take that any day of the week.

It was the final score of the game that bothered me the most. Deadlock. Tie. No winner. No loser.

I was a big critic of shootouts before they were implemented at the beginning of the NHL season.

Hockey is a sport dependent upon team skill. You create scoring opportunities by outworking and outskating your opponent. Deciding the final outcome of the game in a way that's solely based on individual performance is a cop-out.

But I've changed my ways.

A couple of weeks ago, I was watching a game between the Edmonton Oilers and the Vancouver Canucks. The game went back and forth and as the final minutes of regulation ticked down, I found myself feeling surprised that I actually wanted the five-minute overtime to end without a goal so that the game would go into a shootout.

What I've come to like about shootouts is that a player who's hot during the game will probably be the one relied upon to win the game.

In the Oilers game, that's what happened. Edmonton's Raffi Torres scored twice in regulation and was the first player up in the shootout. He scored. Another player scored for the Oilers, their goalie stopped both Vancouver shots and Edmonton won.

And there's an entertainment value that goes with it as well which is expected to help the NHL.

The state of the game wasn't the best to begin with before the league shut down for an entire season because of a labor dispute. It's always behind the top three, the economics of the game were poor and teams in big markets continually lured top players with money while the smaller-market teams suffered.

So yeah, the shootout is a marketing ploy to bring more fans to fill up arenas, but from a business standpoint (since that's what professional sports ultimately are as much as you hate to admit it), it's smart.

And the shootout is null during the playoffs so it's not as if games are settled this way when more is at stake.

So that's why college hockey would benefit with shootouts. It definitely wouldn't hurt.

Take Saturday's game for example.

The two goaltenders — MSU's Dominic Vicari and U-M's Billy Sauer — made some phenomenal saves during the game. I would've loved to see a player go one-on-one with each of them.

How badly would've MSU junior forward Drew Miller wanted another chance at going against Sauer? Sauer absolutely robbed him late in the game.

Or what about freshmen forwards Tim Kennedy or Tim Crowder? Each got his first goal as a Spartan. So to have a breakaway shot, at Yost Ice Arena no less, would've been one to remember.

Minnesota and Wisconsin, two of college hockey's perennial greats, come to East Lansing this season.

Imagine the excitement level — the fans at Munn Ice Arena all up from their seats (which doesn't happen much these days anyway), holding their breath, anticipating a shot. It'd be priceless.

The logistics of it will have to be worked out, such as the way points are awarded, but those are minute details.

College hockey should take the lead from the big boys and bring in shootouts for Friday and Saturday nights.

Esther Gim is the State News deputy sports editor. Reach her at gimesthe@msu.edu.