Geoff Howell writes:
 
>                 The ECAC used to have one game quarterfinals until
>Harvard was upset in '93, when (surprise) the league unveiled the
>three game series the following season.
 
Actually, the ECAC first had a multiple-game quarterfinal series in 1983,
after having a single-game format from the league's inception through 1982.
(And I believe those single games were played on Tuesday, thus compressing
the ECAC playoffs into one week)  In 1983, the ECAC went to the two-games-
with-no-overtime format, with ties broken by the much-reviled ten-minute
minigame immediately following the second game.  Geez, that was weird.
Anyway, the league went back to the single-game format in 1992, ostensibly
because there were so few upsets in the multiple-game series and the league
wanted to "increase the playoff excitement" by giving the underdogs more of
a chance.  At least, that's what I heard at the time.  Both Harvard and Yale
were upset that year (Harvard by #10 seed RPI), and the next year, the ECAC
went back to the multiple-game format.  This time, it was two games, no OTs,
with ties to be broken by a full game played "to conclusion" Sunday night.
The only addition this year was to add a 5-minute OT, if necessary, to the
first two games.  Since the only one of those games to go to overtime ended
in a tie anyway (RPI-Harvard game 1), it doesn't seem to have made a
difference.
 
>                                                       Personally,
>I like a two-game total goal series.
 
If I may weigh in with my own opinion here... this is quite possibly the
worst playoff format I can imagine.  During the regular season, there is no
difference as far as the standings are concerned between a 10-2 win and a 3-
2 win... they both count as a W, nothing more.  Now all of a sudden in the
playoffs, the number of goals scored becomes a factor?  The NC$$ had this in
their quarterfinals back when they took only 8 teams (and maybe the first
year of the 12-team tournament as well, I'll have to check), and I always
hated it.  Not only do you wind up with the situation that the team who wins
the second night can end up losing the series if their opponent had managed
to win by MORE goals the first night (this happened to Cornell twice,
contributing to my dislike for the format), but I also recall a totally
ludicrous situation some years ago where a team won the second game of the
NC$$ quarterfinal something like 5-1... and since their winning margin was
identical to that of their opponent's the night before... they immediately
had to play OVERTIME.  After winning 5-1???
 
I don't know if a multiple-game quarterfinal format is the best thing, but
if we have to have one, my vote is for a full-blown best of three, with all
games having unlimited OTs if necessary.  I'm willing to bet that the ECAC
will never go for that, but their current format is probably as close as the
league will ever get.  Thank God the mini-game is gone... and hopefully, no
one will mention the phrase "total-goal series" the next time the ECAC
higher-ups meet to decide what they want to change in the playoff format.
--
Disclaimer -- Unless otherwise noted, all opinions expressed above are
              strictly those of:
 
Bill Fenwick                        |  Send your HOCKEY-L poll responses to:
Cornell '86 and '94.5               |  [log in to unmask]
LET'S GO RED!!                                                  DJF  5/27/94
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million type-
 writers, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare."
-- Blair Houghton