The Dynasty will be complete when they win it next year and they will win it.

[log in to unmask] wrote:

> In a message dated 4/13/2003 4:06:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > There were 26 ties in WCHA play, not 52.
> >
> > [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > >Is Minnesota the new "dynasty"?
> > >
> > >I don't want to take anything away from the Gophers--they played an
> > >outstanding game in whipping the pussies from New Hampshire--but I don't
> > see
> > >how a team with eight losses and nine ties during the regular season
> > >qualifies as a dynasty.  Very good, well coached, peaking at the right
> > time,
> > >clutch performers--all of those descriptors apply in spades to Minnesota.
> > >But not a dynasty.  At least not yet.
> > >
> > >And by the way, what is it with the WCHA.  Why do they have so many ties?
> > >WCHA teams played a total of 140 conference games during this past season,
> > >and 52 of them--37%--were ties.  That a higher percentage of ties than any
> > >other conference--more than double the percentage of ties in the ECAC and
> > the
> > >CCHA.
> > >
> > >CCHA   168 conference games   30 ties   18%
> > >CHA    60 conference games       20 ties  33%
> > >ECAC   132 conference games      22 ties  17%
> > >HEA    108 conference games      24 ties  22%
> > >MAAC   143 conference games      16 ties   11%
> > >WCHA   140 conference games      52 ties  37%
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Timothy J. Danehy
> > http://www.collegehockeystats.com
> > Phone -  (315) 386-2748
> > E-mail - <A HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">mailto:[log in to unmask]</A>
> >
>
> You're right.  I divided the total number of conference games by two,
> realizing that each game has two teams, but neglected to do the same for the
> number of ties, so I have overstated the percentage of ties for all six
> conferences by a factor of two.  My question still remains:  Why so many more
> ties in the WCHA than the other conferences?