HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"William E. Corrigan, Jr." <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
William E. Corrigan, Jr.
Date:
Fri, 7 Mar 1997 17:31:20 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (53 lines)
>I think someone the other day asked for the RATIONALE behind this 3 pt
>thing.  Is there some logic to it?  Does it add excitement? Am I missing
>something (probably :-)?  Why not just best two out of three with each
>game a play til you drop overtime? (no shootouts, please!).
>
>Maybe I missed the response, if so, I apologize.  But basically I'dlike to
>know why the ECAC uses this somewhat unorthodox method.
>
>Tony Buffa
>RPI '64 hoping for another run like '95!
>
>=========
>On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Thomas Chestna wrote:
>
>>
>> The ECAC playoff format is such that it is the first team to 3 points. The
>> first two games can end in ties (after the 5 min sudden-death period) and the
>> 3rd will have an infinite number of overtime periods until their is a winner.
 
 
        I have never understood why the ECAC persists in this three-point
playoff format.  IMO,
when the season advances to playoff time, all games should be played until
a winner is determined.
 
        It makes very little sense for a first night tie to result in a
winner-take-all second game when the series is advertised as a
best-of-three.
 
        In addition, when there is a first night winner, it seems ludicrous
for that victor to only have to play for a tie the second night (with all
of the strategic machinations from the coach's standpoint which are
inherent in the situation); besides giving the first night winner an
"unfair" advantage when each game should stand by itself and not be
"tainted" by the failure to decide a winner in the previous contest, the
format places an inordinate amount of importance on taking the first game
of what purports to be a best-of-three as the loser will have more than a
justified amount of pressure to win while the first night winner can close
out their opponent with a tie rather than a victory.
 
         Just doesn't seem like the second game of the series (following a
first night victory)  has equal value to both teams, as I believe it should
in a championship format.
 
 
 
Bill Corrigan
 
LET'S GO BRUNO!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2