Dave Wollstadt wrote:
 
>>I don't get it. The University of Vermont conducts an investigation of a
major hazing incident in the hockey program and discovers that enough
players were lying to the investigators that it cancels the remainder of the
season.  Yet no one is punished, and all the players retain their
scholarships and will be invited back next season with their scholarships
intact.<<
 
Cancellation of half a season isn't punishment?
 
I can understand (but I disagree with) an argument that the punishment
wasn't severe enough or was too severe, but I don't understand an argument
that cancelling an activity that has this much importance in these young
men's lives isn' t punishment at all.  To be able to play hockey at the D1
level takes many years of preparation and a lot of commitment.  Losing this
much of a season, along with the notoriety, is pretty severe -- and
appropriate -- in my opinion.  For the seniors, it means the end of their
college career, and possibly the end of their formal hockey career comes in
a very abrupt and distasteful way.  Particularly severe, and in my opinion,
appropriate, since the seniors should be the leaders.
 
Adam Bryant wrote:
 
>>To comment on the article by Jayson Moy on USCHO:  He brought up the point
that by counting the games that had already been played by Vermont and using
winning percentages in standings and per-games-statistics for
goals/assists/pts/etc. would create a very unbalanced and unfair system that
would favor the teams that had one less game remaining than the other
teams.<<
 
Unbalanced system yes.  VERY unbalanced, no.  The system doesn't
automatically favor the team that has less games remaining.  Since the
percentage value of each game is greater, each win AND each loss is
magnified by a small amount.  So for the teams with fewer remaining games,
if they win, the system favors them.  If they lose, the system disfavors
them.  What's unfair about that?
 
It would make far more difference if Vermont were a powerhouse team or a
weak sister.  Then it would be a big advantage for a team to avoid one or
two probable losses, or a big disadvantage to lose out on one or two
probable wins.  The reality is that Vermont was a middle of the road team,
3-2-2 in the league games that they had played.
 
It would also make a difference if one of UVM's game had had an unexpected
result -- for example if a team that should have beat UVM had lost to them,
or a team that should have lost to them had beat them.  But that wasn't the
case either.  They had beaten Brown on the road, andPrinceton and Union at
home.  They had lost to Yale at home, and to Harvard on the road.  They had
tiedRensellaer (home) and Dartmouth (away).  None of these results is
particularly shocking.
 
IF the ECAC regular season winner gets an autobid, I'll concede a small
point, but a very small one.  If the ECAC autobid goes to the postseason
tournament winner (or if they're two autobids, sorry I've forgotten), then
the system worked out by the ECAC has a minimal effect.
 
Just to test it out, I'm going to calculate it both ways.  I'll report back
at the end of the season.
 
Clay
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.