At  5:41 PM 12/6/94 -0600, D. L. Sullivan wrote:
>Re: Ties and Various Point Systems
>
>   There has been some discussion, among fans, about making wins worth
>more points in order to "encourage" teams to play for wins in order to
>make the game more exciting.
>
>   I've added up the ECAC conference games using 3 different point systems:
>1) 2 pts win, 1 pt tie, 0 pts loss;
>2) 3 pts win, 1 pt tie, 0 pts loss;
>3) 5 pts win, 2 pt tie, 0 pts loss.
>
>   I've also included normalized points per game (PPG) in order to be
>fair to teams with fewer games played.   (As of Dec 5, 1994)
>
 
 
(exhaustive standings chart deleted)
 
 
>NOTES:  The team rankings based on PPG do not change between the systems.
>
>        The team rankings based on total points do not change between the
>        systems except to break the 'tie' between Vermont and Cornell.
>
>        I'll let you draw your own conclusions on the issue of ties, etc.
>
>David Sullivan
>RPI '92
 
I wasn't aware such discussion was going on independent of the issue of
differentiating between Hockey East games won in regulation or overtime and
tie games where an extra point is awarded to the winner of a shoot-out
competition. I don't think it would have even been necessary to do out all
the math to see that with only three possibilities (win, loss, or tie) the
number of points for wins and ties relatively doesn't matter much and
wouldn't have any significant impact on league standings. The 3-1-0 system
just serves to give teams that win a slight advantage over teams near .500
who may have more ties, and the 5-2-0 system does the same thing with a
slightly different advantage.
 
Personally, I'd think the 100% difference in the point values of wins
versus ties (2-1-0) would be plenty of incentive... and teams will probably
play for wins at home and ties on the road regardless of the number of
points involved.
 
Dave Josselyn
Merrimack College '93
Syracuse University '94?