>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