> ECAC Tournament:
>   Omit #11-#12; then 7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9 single games;
>     reseed then 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, 3 vs 6, and 4 vs 5;
>     2 games with 5 minute overtimes; if then tied, 1 game with 20 minute
OTs.
>     reseed, then; 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3; then consolation and final.
>     Tiebreakers:            Bill Fenwick - Oct 1995
>   1 Head-to-head; not tournaments.         4 Goal differential,
head-to-head.
>   2 Record against top 4 teams.            5 Goal differential vs top
four.
>   3 Record against top 8 teams.            6 Goal differential vs top
eight.
>     Based on current standings:         Omit ---->     12 Brwn       11
Yale
>   7 Havd      8 Unin        1 Crnl        2 RPI         3 VT          4
Prnc
>  10 Dart      9 StLw        8 New 8       7 New 7       6 Clgt        5
Clks
>
*************************************************************************
 
1.  As has been pointed out, RPI would beat out Cornell for the #1 due to
their 4-2 win in Ithaca on December 6.  The rematch is February 22 in Troy.
 Of course, standings at the moment are meaningless, especially since
Princeton occupies a very different seeding if you consider winning
percentage rather than points.  (That distinction comes out in the wash
when a complete season has been played.)
 
2.  "Head-to-head not tournaments" is a pretty confusing way to say "head
to head, regular season".  Likewise, "2 games with 5 minute overtimes"
seems to obscure what I think is the more exact meaning: 2 games, each with
a single 5 minute o.t.
 
3.  Once upon a time, # of wins was one of the criteria.  For example, a
13-9 record would beat out a 12-8-2 record.  I didn't know this had dropped
out of consideration (though I'm pleased).
 
4.  Does it seem strange to anyone that while goal differential is
enshrined in this system as so important, goal differential in ALL RS games
is never considered?
 
5.  It seems to me that these rules can produce an infinite loop with no
resolution when there are ties at the 4/5 and 8/9 splits.  Isn't
"conclusiveness" the FIRST standard against which any such criteria should
be measured?  I think this problem goes away if you remove any reference to
seeding within the seeding rules (since this is the source of the circular
reference).  You can do this by saying, for instance, record vs. teams >
.500.
 
 
Greg Berge
Let's Go Red!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.