Gee!  A chance for an old-timer to contribute rather than just keeping
up with the current situation.  :)
 
Mike Machnik wrote:
>
>Greg Berge writes:
>>The ECAC had a 3 division format for many
>>years.  The three divisions were East (basically,
>>the core of what is now Hockey East), the Ivies,
>>and the Empire (the NY non-Ivies: SLU,
>>Clarkson, etc...).
>
>Greg is of course correct...I'm not sure why but the 1989-90 College Hockey
>Record Manual has the divisions listed as East Region-West Region-Ivy
>Region, not East-Empire-Ivy.  Maybe it was known as the Empire Division
>in NY?  It was before my time, so I don't know.
 
My recollection is that the Empire Division was a quasi-official
division consisted of the New York teams (including Cornell from the
Ivy Division and excluding Vermont -- a member of the West
Division).
 
>The ECAC existed in this form for five seasons, 1979-80 through 1983-84.
>After that, 5 of the 6 East Region teams bolted to form Hockey East.
>They were quickly followed by the other East team, Maine, and ECAC
>affiliate/DivI Indep Lowell.  That left the ECAC with 11 teams, and
>Army was taken in as a member the next season - the ECAC's own "Great
>Compromise"?  (How many history/polysci majors out there... :-))
 
To that point, Army had been an (*the*) ECAC Division I independent
so it's not too surprising that they became the 12th ECAC division I
team.
 
>[plausible excuse for teams playing different number of games
>deleted] ...  Yet, it appears that not until the
>4th and 5th years of the setup was there a schedule in place that had
>all members of the same *division* play the same number of games.  For
>example, in 1981-82 in the West, Clarkson, Colgate and RPI each played
>20, while SLU played 21 and Vermont 22.
 
This occurred in other divisions as well.
 
>Since I don't know exactly how the playoffs were structured (8 of 17
>teams made it), I have to guess.  In the first season, 1979-80, the
>order of the seeds 1-8 was the same as their ECAC win %.
>
>In 1980-81, the top three seeds are the same.  But Cornell, which won
>the Ivy Region with a lower win % than three East teams that would
>have been seeded 4-6, got the 4th seed instead of the 7th seed and the
>three East teams (Maine/NU/PC) got bumped to 5-7.  This makes me think
>that there was a provision that all region winners had to receive home
>ice bids.
 
Good guess.  From the 81-82 ECAC Hockey Guide:
 
        Those top eight teams [qualifiers for the ECAC Division I
   Championship Tournament] will be selected from the 17 eligible
   Division I squads.  Each of the winners of the three regions (based
   on the results of all ECAC Division I games) will receive automatic
   home ice for the quarterfinals as well as one of the top four seeded
   slots.  The second place team in the three regions with the best ECAC
   Division I record will receive the fourth home ice spot.  Seeding of
   those four teams will be based on the overall ECAC Division I record
   regardless of regional standing.  Seeds 5 through 8 will be
   determined on Divisional record.  In the event of a tie, the
   positions will be based on the head-to-head results of their regular
   season play, then inter-regional records and finally on the records
   against other tournament qualifiers.
 
        For the second season in a row, the ECAC has four berths for the
   NCAA Division I Ice Hockey Championships.  The ECAC tournament winner
   will automatically qualify.  The remaining three ECAC representatives
   will be selected by the NCAA Hockey Tournament Committed based on
   overall varsity records, strength of schedule, roster depth and ECAC
   Tournament finish.  ....
 
>It was pretty tough to make the ECAC playoffs in those days.  Yale
>finished half a game behind Cornell in 1980-81 but only 9th overall;
>Cornell got that 4th seed and home ice and Yale stayed home.
>
>The funny thing about that 1980-81 season (opening the door for
>Cornell folk to reminisce, I bet) is that 7th-ranked Cornell rode that
>4th seed all the way to the ECAC championship game and a berth in the
>NC$$s.  Cornell lost the ECAC final to actual 7th-seed Providence
>(irony, no?), but back then the conference finalists both pretty much
>always received bids (maybe always).
 
See the second quoted paragraph above for how it was done.  The one
I like is "roster depth" -- kind of handy if the committee decides that
one team is better than their record indicates.
 
>In two of the last three years of the setup, seeds were adjusted to
>move up a region winner with a low win %.  [...]
 
I could check further if you like, but my impression is that it was
done (when the situation occurred) during the whole 3-division ECAC
era.
 
- Stevie Wonder
  Brown '82  GO BRUINS!!!       Go Tampa Bay Lightning!!!
--
Steve Allen-Shinn       [log in to unmask]
Martin Marietta         Daytona Beach, Fla.