In article <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] (Steve Kapetanakis) writes: |> Can someone out there enlighten me. I thought the ECAC quarterfinal |> playoff round was best 2-of-3. Assuming I'm correct, and I know |> I should never assume, here's my question: |> |> Why was Brown declared the series winner over Yale? The two teams |> tied their first game 3-3, and Brown won the second 5-3. Clearly, |> by winning the third game, Yale would even the series and force an |> overtime, but they weren't given the chance. |> |> Now I know Hockey East's format was total points, yet I thought the |> ECAC was best of 3. Am I mistaken, or is there a flaw in the ECAC |> system? |> |> |> -kap |> |> The ECAC quarterfinals are " first to three points." That is why Brown was able to advance with a tie and a win. Pretty strange. -Tim 8^) RPI ENGINEERS! 1992-93 ECAC NON-IVY CHAMPIONS!!!! __ / / / / LET'S GO RED!!!! / / LET'S GO RED!!!! / / / / _______/ / /_________/ __ / \ (RPI!) \__/ ************************************* * Tim Hurley 8^) * * Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute * * [log in to unmask] * *************************************