Thanks Bill.
 
Here's the reason I was asking.  I was trying to calcuate the effect of the
method the ECAC picked to deal with the Vermont situation.  I compared the
actual outcome with not counting ANY of the Vermont games.  With the method
picked, Harvard finished tied for sixth, but lost the tie breaker, so they
got seeded seventh.  If the none of the Vermont games had counted, Harvard
would have tied Dartmouth for seventh place, but would have won the
head-to-head, so they would have gotten seeded seventh.  So for all that
some made of the ECAC's decision, it actually came to nothing.
 
Clay
 
(Bill, sorry for the redundant message.)
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Fenwick [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 12:18 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: ECAC Tiebreakers
>
> On Mar 6, 12:04, Satow, Clay wrote:
> >Simple question, I think.
> >
> >Can someone tell me how the ECAC resolved the ties between
> Harvard/Princeton
> >and Cornell/Clarkson to determine the playoff seedings?
>
> Eh, somewhat simple...  Cornell won the first tiebreaker, head-to-head
> record,
> by going 2-0 against Clarkson.  Princeton and Harvard split their two
> games, so
> we go to the second tiebreaker, record against the top five teams (St.
> Lawrence, Colgate, Rensselaer, Cornell, and Clarkson).  There, Princeton
> wins
> the tiebreaker, with a 3-5-2 record compared to Harvard's 1-8-1.
>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.