mini-game question

Just wondering, but from 1983 to 1991, in the ECAC tournament, when a series was tied at 1-1, a "mini-game" was played to decide which team would advance. Hopefully this isn't too ignorant of a question, but....what on earth is a mini-game?!

It was a "third" game played immediately after the second game of a tied series was over. Lasted twenty minutes (or maybe it was ten), IIRC, and was not sudden death. Cornell lost a quarter-final series to Clarkson once in a dreaded mini-game.

Another bonehead idea brought to you by the ECAC.

That's idiotic. I hope we don't have that rule around anymore, say, to settle a tie in a best-of-three series. Hey, how does the ECAC settle ties in the best-of-three series now, anyway?

You can't have a tie in a best-of-three series. Games are played with 20 minute OTs until someone wins each one.

Are the OTs sudden death?

I thought a best of 3 series was determined by the first team to get 3 points. So, the first two games CAN end in a tie. Then, if the third game is tied at the end of regulation, then it becomes a skate-till-you-drop sudden-death match.

Of course, I'm probably wrong, but that's just what I recall.

This was the case from 1993 to 1999. Prior to the 1999-2000 season, the playoff series were changed to "best-of-three games," in which all games are played until a team wins. Note the double overtime games in the Harvard/Brown and Dartmouth/Colgate series last year.

No more. They were "first-to-three-points" series until a few years ago when they became "win-two-out-of-three." Back then if a game ended in a tie after the five minute OT each team got a point and moved on to the next game (unless it was the third game of a tied series, in which case they played until someone scored). Now there are no ties. The idea, I suppose, was that a win and a tie would advance a team after two games, and a third game would not be necessary.

For many years the ECAC first-round was a simple "win-one-game-and-advance" (just like the semis and the final have always been), which worked just fine.

The first to get 3 points was when the minigame was in force, if I remember correctly. Then games were not OT, so ties were important. Thus the minigame if the games were split. I also remember a Clarkson series, (who says they are not our second best opponent) where we won the first game and the second ended in a 0-0 tie. Thus there was no mini-game. But it sure was an exciting game, and wierd to see Clarkson pull their goalie to try and win a game that was tied. If my memory is right the game was in their old Walker Arena. Can't remember the date and no time to look it up now.

I think the "first-to-three-points" series came after the "two-game-plus-mini-game" series was dropped. We knocked off Harvard in a "first-to-three-point" series early in the Schafer era, winning the second game after a first game tie.

Well, I'm glad there's no mini-game anymore. Sounds like it was a terrible idea......

But what do you guys think of the format that the NCAA tournament had from 1981 to 1988 in the early rounds? It was a "two games/total goals" format. For example, in 1986, Denver beat us 4-2 in game 1, and we beat them 4-3 in game 2. However, Denver advanced because of the total goals in their favor 7-6. Think that was an effective system? Why might they have gotten rid of it?

Encouraging coaches to run up the score is uncool, at least in my opinion.

I hate total goals series. It's basically a 120-minute game with a 21-hour intermission between periods three and four, and as Hayes says encourages running up the score.

It makes some sense in the context of international soccer, where home field advantage is a big deal, and playing home-and-home total goals effectively makes half the game take place at each site. But when both games are on the same site anyway, it's pointless.

I'm guessing the "two-games-total-goals," "two-games-plus mini-game," and "first-to-three-points" formats were all done to avoid making teams play three days in a row.