On Oct 1, 11:31, William F. Sangrey wrote:
>It has been pointed out that a final five is a very awkward format for a
>league playoff (see WCHA).  How about a different solution for the ECAC, a
>final six?
 
The CCHA did this a few years ago, back when they had 12 teams.  They actually
had a Final Six for two years, then a Final Five the following year.  Statis-
tical oddity:  Lake Superior won the championship two of those three years, and
both times they had to go the three-games-in-three-nights route to do it.  The
only time they missed out on that opportunity (by finishing second and thus not
having to "qualify" for the semis), they lost in the championship game.  Maybe
that extra game was good for them :-)
 
I think the CCHA did it right after those three years, dropping back to only
allowing eight teams into the playoffs.  I'm against the idea of a Final Five
or Final Six for two reasons:  1) I hate it, and 2) if you've got a team that
has proven itself good enough to go to Lake Placid by winning its first-round
series, whatever its seeding, it seems unfair to penalize this team by making
it have to play more games there than some of its fellow semifinalists to win
the championship.  Yeah, I know, the seedings are based on regular-season
perfor- mance (coupled with the ECAC's always-delightful tie-breaking
procedure), but aren't the playoffs a "whole new season"?
 
>  Besides if the ECAC is going to go as low as #10 in the standings, why not
>just let everyone participate?
 
Because -- with apologies to Dartmouth and Brown fans from last year and fans
of ECAC teams in similar situations from previous years -- those last two teams
generally stink to high heaven.  In the eight-year history of the ECAC's pre-
liminary round, the eleventh-place teams have combined for a 36-123-17 league
record, a winning percentage of 0.253 (52-149-19, 0.280 overall), while the
twelfth-place teams have put up a 27-135-14 league record, which translates
into a 0.193 percentage (44-163-16, 0.233 overall).  We're talking beyond '62
Mets territory here.  Not that the tenth seeds have been much to write home
about (50-108-18, 0.335 in the league, and 70-134-20, 0.357 overall).  Besides,
I'd personally rather that the regular season be something more than a seedings
race.  With #11 and #12 kept out, at least a team still has to MAKE the
playoffs.
 
Oddly enough, I find myself happy that the Hockey East teams split off from the
ECAC back in 1984.  Can you imagine, if the ECAC had stayed one big happy
family, what contortions the higher-ups would be going through to get 17 or 18
teams into the playoffs? :-)
 
Just saw the press release that Mike Farrell mentions, and at least the ECAC is
doing *something* right, only charging $4 more for the ticket package with the
Thursday night 4 vs. 5 game than the one without it.
 
--
Disclaimer -- Unless otherwise noted, all opinions expressed above are
              strictly those of:
 
Bill Fenwick
Cornell '86 and '95
LET'S GO RED!!                                                  DJF  5/27/94
"What if there were no hypothetical situations?"
-- John Mendoza
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.