>There is one other possibility, and it's really stupid and I hope HE
doesn't do this... but perhaps when they say "won-loss record vs HE teams"
they mean in ALL >games, not just conference ones.  Thus, two HE teams
could have the same number of league wins, but one or the other or both
could have faced HE opponents >in non-conference games, and thus they could
have differing records "vs. HE teams." It would be mighty dumb, IMHO, to
use non-league results to break a tie in >the league standings, though.
 
Bill, I hear where you're coming from, but I don't know if I'd go so far as
to say that this criteria (if it is what you propose it is) is "stupid" or
"dumb".  Even though those games are technically classified as
non-conference - presumably because they were played as part of a
tournament involving the HE teams - the bottom line is that the HE teams
did play each other.  From that standpoint, I don't think those games
"mean" any less simply because they don't count in the standings as league
games.  I'd bet that the HE opponents saw it in some ways as another HE
contest.  In fact, one could argue that one of these games might carry with
it more significance than an HE/non-HE non-conference game.  Fort example,
if UML & UNH were to battle it out for the Governor's Cup.  Technically, a
non-conference game, but probably more than just another mid-season game to
them - perhaps a little interstate bragging rights?  And I'm sure a more
compelling argument could be made for next Monday's BU/BC Beanpot final.
 
Note that this tie-break criteria does follow the more significant &
applicable criteria of head-to-head record & league wins, so it isn't
likely to come into play.
 
Dave Hatfield
UML'86
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.