Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sun, 14 Dec 1997 09:14:45 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
-- [ From: Kepler * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
> The banner makes no reference to the fact that the title was shared or was
for
> regular season honors. The conference champion is the team that wins the
> tournament.
Ordinarily, such banners do say "regular season" on them. But, technically
speaking, UNH *was* co-champion of the HE regular season. Their standing
would be 1(t), with the tie resolved against them for the tournament seed.
The banner is valid, though terse.
> For UNH to claim title to the Hockey East championship would be
> like Michigan claiming the 1997 NCAA title by virtue of their having the
> highest PWR at the close of the regular season.
Actually, it is *this* argument which makes an analogous error. The regular
season and the tournament are separate. UNH wins a share of the RS title
and should be permitted to claim that. For a team to claim it has won sole
possession of the RS title because it wins the tie breaker for the
conference seed is invalid in the same way that (cut/paste Michigan
comparison to here).
OK, for anyone who has read this far, here is a reward so that this has some
token content of interest for someone not involved with the two teams or who
has a woody for predicate calculus: In the early days of the ECAC, teams
played different numbers of league games and were ranked for the tournament
by winning percentage. If team A finished 17-5 and team B finished 16-4,
which do you think is entitled to call itself the regular season champion?
--
Greg R. Berge
[log in to unmask]
http://www.spiritone.com/~kepler
"Ne te quaesiveris extra."
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|