In article <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] (Steve Kapetanakis) writes:
|> Can someone out there enlighten me.  I thought the ECAC quarterfinal
|> playoff round was best 2-of-3.  Assuming I'm correct, and I know
|> I should never assume, here's my question:
|>
|> Why was Brown declared the series winner over Yale?  The two teams
|> tied their first game 3-3, and Brown won the second 5-3.  Clearly,
|> by winning the third game, Yale would even the series and force an
|> overtime, but they weren't given the chance.
|>
|> Now I know Hockey East's format was total points, yet I thought the
|> ECAC was best of 3.  Am I mistaken, or is there a flaw in the ECAC
|> system?
|>
|>
|> -kap
|>
|>
 
 
  The ECAC quarterfinals are " first to three points."  That is why
 Brown was able to advance with a tie and a win. Pretty strange.
 
                                             -Tim 8^)
 
 
 
 
                   RPI ENGINEERS! 1992-93 ECAC NON-IVY CHAMPIONS!!!!
 
                                                  __
                                                 / /
                                                / /
                LET'S GO RED!!!!               / /         LET'S GO RED!!!!
                                              / /
                                             / /
                                     _______/ /
                                   /_________/
                                        __
                                       /  \
                                      (RPI!)
                                       \__/
 
 
 
                       *************************************
                       *  Tim Hurley  8^)                  *
                       *  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute *
                       *  [log in to unmask]                   *
                       *************************************