Cornell 0 RPI 2

fenwick
Nope, they always start over with the remaining teams. The idea is not to give a team a higher seeding in a three-way tie than they would have gotten if the tie were between only two teams.

That may be the idea, but if the three-way tie is caused by A>B, B>C, C>A, and A wins the first pass tiebreaker, then they have indeed been placed higher than C than they would have if it had only been a two-way tie.

It is totally arbitrary that if you get a first pass rank ordering of, say, A, C, B, you wouldn't just stick with it. Having multiple passes is as silly as, say, using the first pass to determine the *worst* finisher, and then going up the chain with the next passes. In fact, that would make more sense, since you'd get a supposedly "better" ordering at the top, which one would think would matter more.

Three weeks ago tonight, after beating Colgate in Hamilton, did anyone here think that less than three weeks later we'd be discussing tiebreakers for fourth place?

andyw2100
Two weeks ago tonight, after beating Colgate in Hamilton, did anyone here think that less than two weeks later we'd be discussing tiebreakers for fourth place?

Gosh no...watching McCutcheon score the GWG at Starr was definitely the highlight of the season so far. If our team can get back to the level we were playing that weekend, we'll be in great shape.

andyw2100
Three weeks ago tonight, after beating Colgate in Hamilton, did anyone here think that less than three weeks later we'd be discussing tiebreakers for fourth place?

Did anyone think 75% of the on-the-ice-time of the defensemen would be in sick bay?

If anybody has a tradition of winning the ECACs from a non-pole position, it's Cornell.