>In article <[log in to unmask]>,
>Bill Fenwick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>$ Union             6  12   4   16   70   87     9  15   4   22   98  111
>>Dartmouth           7  13   2   16   80  111     9  16   2   20   95  136
>
>
>>Union placed tenth due to their record against the top eight teams (5-7-4
>>vs. 5-10-1 for Dartmouth).
>
>I'm a little surprised that the ECAC doesn't use the number of wins
>as a tiebreaker. If I was Dartmouth, I'd be feeling a little boned
>here. In my book, a win and a loss is better than two ties.
>
>Doesn't every other hockey league (non-NCAA) use # of wins as criteria?
 
In my experience, yes. I know the NHL uses wins as the first tiebreaker,
as does my Junior A league (and I suspect all others). It seems to me that
wins should either be first or, at worst, second behind head-to-head record.
It makes little sense for it to be behind such silliness as record vs. Top
4 or record vs. Top 8. If nothing else, using wins as a tiebreaker doesn't
require a spreadsheet. :-)
 
See you later,
John
 
--
John C.K. Edwards        Stats Geek, Ottawa Jr Senators (25-24-3 56pts) (CJHL)
Carleton U., Law IV                   I don't give a damn about being liked,
[log in to unmask]           but I sure as hell intend to be respected.
Canadian [Tier II] Jr. A standings: http://www.eng.carleton.ca/chat/~jedwards