>        Nitpick: any team that wins a conference tournament is
>automatically a TUC for all purposes, regardless of their winning
>percentage.
 
Actually, that is not at all an undisputed fact.  Harvard's appearance in
the ECAC finals 2 years ago caused some discussion on this point, but it
was entirely unresolved in my recollection, and when Harvard lost the point
became moot.  We have no idea whether a team which wins its tournament
despite being under .500 becomes a TUC for purposes of comparison criteria.
It seems far more reasonable to assume that such a team is NOT a TUC,
since, particularly for the 'record vs. TUC' criterion, this could create
quite a few differences in PWC standings.  Which brings up the question:
 
When was the last time a team won their tournament with a sub-.500 record
at the time?
 
I know that in the last two years this hasn't occurred, since we would have
gotten a definitive answer to the above question.
 
And I gather that we haven't yet heard a definitive response on whether
top4/top8 has gone to top5/top10?  record against top 10 would seem to be a
ridiculously poor tiebbreaker, since that leaves out the bottom 2 teams
only.  Of course, with Cornell's record against the league cellar dwellers,
that doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.
 
Larry Weintraub '98,
Cornell University
Let's Go BIG RED!!!!!
 
Quote of the Semester:
        "They wear their hearts on their sleeves here at Cornell...and also
their faces."
 
        -- TV Announcers at the Cornell-Colgate game,
           while the camera was in a close-up on my painted face.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.