Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 6 Dec 1994 17:41:53 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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)
2,1,0 3,1,0 5,2,0
Team W L T Pts PPG/2 Pts PPG/3 Pts PPG/5
RPI 5 0 0 10 1.000 15 1.000 25 1.000
Brown 6 2 0 12 0.750 18 0.750 30 0.750
Clarkson 3 1 1 7 0.700 10 0.667 17 0.680
Dartmouth 2 1 1 5 0.625 7 0.583 12 0.600
Harvard 4 3 1 9 0.563 13 0.542 22 0.550
Vermont 2 2 0 4 0.500 6 0.500 10 0.500
Princeton 3 4 0 6 0.429 9 0.429 15 0.429
Yale 2 4 1 5 0.357 7 0.333 12 0.343
Cornell 1 3 2 4 0.333 5 0.278 9 0.300
Union 1 3 1 3 0.300 4 0.267 7 0.280
Colgate 1 4 1 3 0.250 4 0.222 7 0.233
St Lawrence 1 4 0 2 0.200 3 0.200 5 0.200
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
|
|
|