>>Same thing for seedings in the tournament, in my opinion .... I think
>>the team with the most total wins should get the nod -- then if
there's
>>a tie, break it by RPI or head-to-head comparison - whatever.
>
>But Adam, the reason this works for awarding a regular season
championship
>in any conference is that each team plays the same number of games that
are
>being used in the total (eg for the ECAC, there are 22 specific games
for
>each team that are counted in the total). Even then, there is a
>questionable discrepancy in the WCHA because the schedule is not
balanced.
>
>However, when comparing teams for NCAA bids, the teams overall record
is
>used, and not all teams have the same number of games in their overall
>record.
 
Paulette,
 
"WINS" in this case has nothing to do with wins as you know it.  We're
talking about comparison wins, which is a lot more complicated ... and
has nothing to with the amount of games played.
 
 >This I believe has always kept the Ivies in a slight disadvantage
>in the national polls, because other teams play many more games early
in
>the season, and thus can potentially have a double digit win column
when
>the Ivies have played only 4 or 5 games.
 
Perhaps -- but polls don't count for squat, so don't worry about it.
 
 >So how do you compare two teams by total wins when one team has played
8
>more games that the other?  One, you go by win percentage rather than
total
>wins.
 
The comparison system used by the NCAA is way more complicated than
this, rest assured. It's the whole reason why the system is in place
.... if simple winning percentage were fair, it would be a lot easier
just to use that.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.