Adam Bryant writes:
>
>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.
>
>I have to agree with him on the unfairness of using percentages for league
>standings, especially considering that the ECAC schedule was (if my poor
>memory serves right) a very balanced schedule.  Taking out the games against
>Vermont might have been a better solution for league standings.
 
As I mentioned in an e-mail to Jason, the phenomenon of league standings
based on winning percentage is not new in the ECAC.  Back in the college
hockey dark ages (circa 1970's), ECAC members always played an unbalanced
schedule.  In 1977 my beloved UNH Wildcats had 21 wins on the season to
Clarkson's 19, however they finished second in the league because they also
had two more losses than the Golden Knights and wound up with a lower
winning percentage.  Two years later they had the same number of wins as BU
but again finished second because the Terriers played two fewer games.
 
In fact, back in those days, the difference in the number of games played
was extraordinary. In 1977 UNH played 7(!) more games than seventh place
Brown and in 1979 played 5(!) more than Colgate.  Unfair? Yes.
Unprecedented? No.  It reminds me of 1972 when the Red Sox lost the AL East
to the Tigers by a half game because they had played one less game than
Detroit and were not allowed to make it up.  Thank god times have changed.
 
Greg Ambrose, UNH '72
GO UNH BLUE!!
STILL #1!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.