IVY League standings

Just looked up the IVY league hockey standings and noticed that they are awarding 3 pts for a victory and 1 point for a tie. Have they always done this as opposed to the traditional 2 pts for a win and 1 pt for a tie ?

Dartmouth 5-1 0.833 15
Harvard 4-1-1 0.750 13
Cornell 4-1 0.800 12
Brown 1-4 0.200 3
Yale 1-4 0.200 3
Princeton 0-4-1 0.100 1

Cop at Lynah
Just looked up the IVY league hockey standings and noticed that they are awarding 3 pts for a victory and 1 point for a tie. Have they always done this as opposed to the traditional 2 pts for a win and 1 pt for a tie ?

Dartmouth 5-1 0.833 15
Harvard 4-1-1 0.750 13
Cornell 4-1 0.800 12
Brown 1-4 0.200 3
Yale 1-4 0.200 3
Princeton 0-4-1 0.100 1

I don't know, and hardly care, but if that's true, it's stupid. A total of 2 points when 2 teams tie, but 3 when one wins. I know that leagues have gone to nonlinear points, but for a 6 team league where each plays the other 5 teams twice, it's stupid. Just not enough games to average it out.

Harvard has a tie compared to a win and is 2 points behind Dartmouth. Going to be tough to make that up with just a few games left.

Tie every game in the league and you get 10 points. A team that goes 4-6 beats you. Dumb. Fortunately it's close to meaningless anyway.

Yeah that's dumb as all hell.

Interesting, though, how it's essentially a 3 team race now.

Jim Hyla

Cop at Lynah
Just looked up the IVY league hockey standings and noticed that they are awarding 3 pts for a victory and 1 point for a tie. Have they always done this as opposed to the traditional 2 pts for a win and 1 pt for a tie ?

Dartmouth 5-1 0.833 15
Harvard 4-1-1 0.750 13
Cornell 4-1 0.800 12
Brown 1-4 0.200 3
Yale 1-4 0.200 3
Princeton 0-4-1 0.100 1

I don't know, and hardly care, but if that's true, it's stupid. A total of 2 points when 2 teams tie, but 3 when one wins. I know that leagues have gone to nonlinear points, but for a 6 team league where each plays the other 5 teams twice, it's stupid. Just not enough games to average it out.

Harvard has a tie compared to a win and is 2 points behind Dartmouth. Going to be tough to make that up with just a few games left.

Tie every game in the league and you get 10 points. A team that goes 4-6-0 3-5-2 beats you. Dumb. Fortunately it's close to meaningless anyway.

FYP

The Asian Hockey League gives 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, and one point for a OT loss. Makes a bit more sense.

Jeff Hopkins '82
The Asian Hockey League gives 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, and one point for a OT loss. Makes a bit more sense.

We could never do that. The math is too hard.

I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

This appears to be new. Last year's standings show the usual 2 points for a win and 1 for a tie structure that the ECAC uses, and I'm pretty sure that the Ivies have used that in the past as well. (Can't tell from the "historical" standings on the Ivy site; 2017-18 standings show winning percentage only, and prior ones seem to use ECAC conference standings, although with some mishmash of missing games or something)

Not that this should be considered authoritative, but collegehockeystats.net is showing 2-1-0 for points in the Ivy standings.

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82
The Asian Hockey League gives 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, and one point for a OT loss. Makes a bit more sense.

We could never do that. The math is too hard.

+1

Trotsky

Jeff Hopkins '82
The Asian Hockey League gives 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win, and one point for a OT loss. Makes a bit more sense.

We could never do that. The math is too hard.

NASCAR could offer up a more interesting formula and the Race to the Chase. Or Chase to the Race. We'd be going into the final weekend 350 points ahead of Harvard but with 750 points on the line that weekend, plus points for the team that led the most periods, shortest time in time out, and best placement of sponsor patches.

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

If we're voting, go back to the ten minute 5x5 overtime, then a tie that the ECAC had when I was young and dinosaurs roamed the Earth. That was the best system I have seen. Five is a bit too short.

And for god's sake kill 3-point games. All NHL records are a joke and the only way to get a feel for winning percentage is to add L's and OTL's.

Trotsky
If we're voting, go back to the ten minute 5x5 overtime, then a tie that the ECAC had when I was young and dinosaurs roamed the Earth. That was the best system I have seen. Five is a bit too short.

Agree. Change isn't always for the better.

nshapiro

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

Somebody did this for a while. Was it the WCHA about 15 years ago?

It might have been the B1G.

Trotsky

nshapiro

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

Somebody did this for a while. Was it the WCHA about 15 years ago?

Hockey East, in 1994-95, and 1995-96.

adamw

Trotsky

nshapiro

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

Somebody did this for a while. Was it the WCHA about 15 years ago?

Hockey East, in 1994-95, and 1995-96.

Was that when they did the split season with the WCHA? No, that was probably earlier.

Trotsky

adamw

Trotsky

nshapiro

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

Somebody did this for a while. Was it the WCHA about 15 years ago?

Hockey East, in 1994-95, and 1995-96.

Was that when they did the split season with the WCHA? No, that was probably earlier.

That was the first few years after the split - 85, 86, 87

adamw

Trotsky

adamw

Trotsky

nshapiro

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

Somebody did this for a while. Was it the WCHA about 15 years ago?

Hockey East, in 1994-95, and 1995-96.

Was that when they did the split season with the WCHA? No, that was probably earlier.

That was the first few years after the split - 85, 86, 87

It all runs together.

Trotsky

adamw

Trotsky

nshapiro

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

Somebody did this for a while. Was it the WCHA about 15 years ago?

Hockey East, in 1994-95, and 1995-96.

Was that when they did the split season with the WCHA? No, that was probably earlier.

Wait, what?

French Rage

Trotsky

adamw

Trotsky

nshapiro

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

Somebody did this for a while. Was it the WCHA about 15 years ago?

Hockey East, in 1994-95, and 1995-96.

Was that when they did the split season with the WCHA? No, that was probably earlier.

Wait, what?

First few years of Hockey East, they had what was known as an "interlocking schedule" with WCHA.

adamw

French Rage

Trotsky

adamw

Trotsky

nshapiro

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

Somebody did this for a while. Was it the WCHA about 15 years ago?

Hockey East, in 1994-95, and 1995-96.

Was that when they did the split season with the WCHA? No, that was probably earlier.

Wait, what?

First few years of Hockey East, they had what was known as an "interlocking schedule" with WCHA.

Wuzzat?

French Rage

adamw

French Rage

Trotsky

adamw

Trotsky

nshapiro

djk26
I've always wanted the NHL to do 4 points for a regulation win, 3 points for an OT win, 2 points for a shootout win and 1 point for a shootout loss (and 0 points for a loss before the shootout.) I wonder if that would incentivize teams to be more aggressive to try to score. Probably not.

I would prefer to see every game worth 5 points:
5 - Regulation Win
4 - Overtime Win
3 - Shootout Win
2 - Shootout Loss
1 - Overtime Loss
0 - Regulation Loss

Somebody did this for a while. Was it the WCHA about 15 years ago?

Hockey East, in 1994-95, and 1995-96.

Was that when they did the split season with the WCHA? No, that was probably earlier.

Wait, what?

First few years of Hockey East, they had what was known as an "interlocking schedule" with WCHA.

Wuzzat?

Schedules that interlocked.

</smartass>

It was a scheduling agreement between Hockey East and the WCHA. Each team would play some larger number of games against teams in its own league and some smaller number of games against teams from the other league. I'd have to look up how many of each; I think it was four games against each team in your own league and one against each team from the other one. All of these games counted as league games in the standings for each league.

I think eventually both leagues became less than enamored with the additional travel costs, and the agreement was dissolved.

Wow, crazy.

Give My Regards
I think eventually both leagues became less than enamored with the additional travel costs, and the agreement was dissolved.

Fuel went up. Tickets went up. Everybody said screw it.

Trotsky

Give My Regards
I think eventually both leagues became less than enamored with the additional travel costs, and the agreement was dissolved.

Fuel went up. Tickets went up. Everybody said screw it.

When HE started they only had 5 teams, although it jumped to 7 before the first game. WCHA had 6 teams, quickly going to 8, so it made sense to work together with game scheduling. As time went on both leagues expanded further and the necessity for rigid interlocking scheduling became less important. Look at what happened when the Big Ten started, too few teams in the league, too many OOC games needed.