Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 15 Mar 1993 19:38:41 GMT |
Organization: |
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY. |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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] *
*************************************
|
|
|