Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 13 Apr 2003 16:18:00 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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?
|
|
|