Lynah now at full capacity

…confirmed in a Coach Schafer email this morning

lots of empty seats so far.. I did notice someone took my ST seats though..

still looking at about 30% on the townie side for tickets sold.

Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

CU2007
Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

What was the score? None of the uscho or CHN pages are showing it.

Never mind...found the score. 3-2 OT.

Jeff Hopkins '82

CU2007
Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

What was the score? None of the uscho or CHN pages are showing it.

3-2 in OT. Counts as .55% of a win in Pairwise

scoop85

Jeff Hopkins '82

CU2007
Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

What was the score? None of the uscho or CHN pages are showing it.

3-2 in OT. Counts as .55% of a win in Pairwise

Live stats says the game hasn't started yet. (10:00 PM EDT)
Sun story here.

scoop85

Jeff Hopkins '82

CU2007
Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

What was the score? None of the uscho or CHN pages are showing it.

3-2 in OT. Counts as .55% of a win in Pairwise

Damn. And here I was thinking “well we escaped with the win and that’s all that matters” and then I guess we only sorta did but also kinda didn’t.

CU2007

scoop85

Jeff Hopkins '82

CU2007
Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

What was the score? None of the uscho or CHN pages are showing it.

3-2 in OT. Counts as .55% of a win in Pairwise

Damn. And here I was thinking “well we escaped with the win and that’s all that matters” and then I guess we only sorta did but also kinda didn’t.

Better than Colgate, which blew a 5-0 lead and lost to Western Michigan 6-5 in regulation

colgate got outshot by almost 30.. you wonder how they got such a big lead to blow.

“Eddie Shore?”

where was the band for 2/3 of the game? the lonely tuba guy sitting there was kinda sad to see.. almost like they forgot to tell him about the party they all went too?

The current band is not adept at being two places at once.

I can't believe football gets top billing over hockey.

CU2007

scoop85

Jeff Hopkins '82

CU2007
Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

What was the score? None of the uscho or CHN pages are showing it.

3-2 in OT. Counts as .55% of a win in Pairwise

Damn. And here I was thinking “well we escaped with the win and that’s all that matters” and then I guess we only sorta did but also kinda didn’t.

.55% win would really be bad. In the ECAC it counts as 2 points while a regulation win is 3. [www.ecachockey.com]

ursusminor

CU2007

scoop85

Jeff Hopkins '82

CU2007
Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

What was the score? None of the uscho or CHN pages are showing it.

3-2 in OT. Counts as .55% of a win in Pairwise

Damn. And here I was thinking “well we escaped with the win and that’s all that matters” and then I guess we only sorta did but also kinda didn’t.

.55% win would really be bad. In the ECAC it counts as 2 points while a regulation win is 3. [www.ecachockey.com]

Right, that's the way the IIHF has been doing it for a few years (before 3x3 actually). Dunno why the NCAA decided to devalue OT wins so much.

scoop85

Jeff Hopkins '82

CU2007
Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

What was the score? None of the uscho or CHN pages are showing it.

3-2 in OT. Counts as .55% of a win in Pairwise

Did Samuel Beckett dream this nonsense up? Just play a five skaters on a side, sudden death overtime for ten minutes, and you either get a deserving winner or a deserved tie. No gimmicks. Just real hockey. Worked fine for a lot of years. And everybody understood it.

Al DeFlorio

Did Samuel Beckett dream this nonsense up? Just play a five skaters on a side, sudden death overtime for ten minutes, and you either get a deserving winner or a deserved tie. No gimmicks. Just real hockey. Worked fine for a lot of years. And everybody understood it.

Agreed!

jtwcornell91

ursusminor

CU2007

scoop85

Jeff Hopkins '82

CU2007
Decent attendance. So does that count as a win or a tie for pairwise stuff?

What was the score? None of the uscho or CHN pages are showing it.

3-2 in OT. Counts as .55% of a win in Pairwise

Damn. And here I was thinking “well we escaped with the win and that’s all that matters” and then I guess we only sorta did but also kinda didn’t.

.55% win would really be bad. In the ECAC it counts as 2 points while a regulation win is 3. [www.ecachockey.com]

Right, that's the way the IIHF has been doing it for a few years (before 3x3 actually). Dunno why the NCAA decided to devalue OT wins so much.

When a game is tied after regulation, each team gets 45% of a win, so they are competing for 10% of a win in OT. It hardly seems worth the effort. At this moment RPI has a .733 winning percentage and sits #8 in PWR. That includes two OT losses contributing in total 90% of a win.

Rk Team PCWs RPI Rk QWB-† W-L-T PwWin % Wgtd Win % - ‡
40 Cornell 16 .4315 40 .0000 1-0-0 .5500 .4490

looks freakin' stupid!

What does it count as for RPI? The pairwise is practically just RPI with the occasional wrinkle. Looks like a tie to me, or maybe the same 55% stuff.

Dafatone
What does it count as for RPI? The pairwise is practically just RPI with the occasional wrinkle. Looks like a tie to me, or maybe the same 55% stuff.

Good fodder for JTW's students, but not so much for my vintage brain.

why does it count less anyway. its still a win.. does they devalue a win if you score in the last min with a 5x3 advantage goal?

Dafatone
What does it count as for RPI? The pairwise is practically just RPI with the occasional wrinkle. Looks like a tie to me, or maybe the same 55% stuff.

It's 55% of a win. (And shootout wins will be 50% of a win.)
[cornellbigred.com]

upprdeck
why does it count less anyway. its still a win.. does they devalue a win if you score in the last min with a 5x3 advantage goal?

I go the other way. 3x3 hockey is way too gimmicky for my tastes. Ditch it or calling a tie regardless of outcome.

You go 3x3 to try and remove most of the ties.. no different than soccer deciding that a play at midfield wouldnt even be worthy of a card but in the penalty area is worth a PK that often decides a game. Some things are dumb in all sports. They could also go 5x5 for 5 min then 4x4 for 5 min then 3x3 or something.. But if you create a rule that makes a winner you shouldnt be giving them the same 2 pts but devaluing it in other places. If thats the case then they should be going to 3-2-1 win/Ot/Tie or something.

upprdeck
You go 3x3 to try and remove most of the ties.. no different than soccer deciding that a play at midfield wouldnt even be worthy of a card but in the penalty area is worth a PK that often decides a game. Some things are dumb in all sports. They could also go 5x5 for 5 min then 4x4 for 5 min then 3x3 or something.. But if you create a rule that makes a winner you shouldnt be giving them the same 2 pts but devaluing it in other places. If thats the case then they should be going to 3-2-1 win/Ot/Tie or something.

You should remove the tie by playing the same game with the same rules that resulted in the tie, not some bastardized version of it. If the tie stands up, so what? It's the fair outcome. 2/1/0 still the best.

In light of all this, an OT win against a bad team feels basically like a loss (and is somewhat reflected as such in the all-important RPI). Oh well, just need a win tonight to call it an OK weekend.

Dafatone
I can't believe football gets top billing over hockey.

Neither can I.

My freshman year, the away Penn weekend coincided with the home Harvard/Brown weekend. So…

We stayed for the hockey game on Friday, had a party, climbed on a bus for an overnight road trip (brief sleep was allowed) to Philadelphia, played a breakfast gig, marched, left after halftime, and made it back before the beginning of the second period of the Brown game. This was back when losing in football was not a given and Brown's hockey team was pretty good. So, we hustled all over to see three losses that weekend.

But it was glorious.

(We also did this with all away games my senior year: Brown hockey, Yale football, Harvard hockey. The very next weekend, we did the same shuffle as above with Vermont (home) hockey, Columbia (away) football, and Dartmouth (home) hockey. IIRC, there was a skeleton band for the Dartmouth game and then we returners showed up for the third. If we hadn't put together that crazy schedule, I would have missed one of my cherished memories from Lynah: a disconsolate Tim Thomas breaking his stick over the cage after we beat their #1-ranked team. Which reminds me of Lake Placid that year: [repeatedly, to the Vermont fans cheering against us] "Where is your team?! Clap-clap-clapclapclap."

(I am also proud to mention that we were, as far as I know, the first four-year group of pep bandies to make trips to every ECAC road rink during our four years. Dartmouth-Vermont, I believe, had been the missing link for many, and we had done the at the time horrid Yale-Princeton trip my freshman year. We made Harvard-Brown, Clarkson-SLU, RPI-Union, and Colgate most every year. And, indeed, the Harvard, Brown, RPI, Colgate, and Clarkson bands commonly visited Lynah. Good times.)

Al DeFlorio

upprdeck
You go 3x3 to try and remove most of the ties.. no different than soccer deciding that a play at midfield wouldnt even be worthy of a card but in the penalty area is worth a PK that often decides a game. Some things are dumb in all sports. They could also go 5x5 for 5 min then 4x4 for 5 min then 3x3 or something.. But if you create a rule that makes a winner you shouldnt be giving them the same 2 pts but devaluing it in other places. If thats the case then they should be going to 3-2-1 win/Ot/Tie or something.

You should remove the tie by playing the same game with the same rules that resulted in the tie, not some bastardized version of it. If the tie stands up, so what? It's the fair outcome. 2/1/0 still the best.

Sudden death is not playing by the same rules, though. Should it be like soccer where you play the full extra period?

love 3x3 sorry! (do not love 55% but would probably be fine if we could negotiate this to, say, 70%)

Weder

Al DeFlorio

upprdeck
You go 3x3 to try and remove most of the ties.. no different than soccer deciding that a play at midfield wouldnt even be worthy of a card but in the penalty area is worth a PK that often decides a game. Some things are dumb in all sports. They could also go 5x5 for 5 min then 4x4 for 5 min then 3x3 or something.. But if you create a rule that makes a winner you shouldnt be giving them the same 2 pts but devaluing it in other places. If thats the case then they should be going to 3-2-1 win/Ot/Tie or something.

You should remove the tie by playing the same game with the same rules that resulted in the tie, not some bastardized version of it. If the tie stands up, so what? It's the fair outcome. 2/1/0 still the best.

Sudden death is not playing by the same rules, though. Should it be like soccer where you play the full extra period?

Read the NCAA overtime rules for soccer: Two ten-minute SUDDEN DEATH periods. In a game where goals are scarce as hen's teeth, like hockey and soccer, sudden death is appropriate. In lacrosse, where twenty-plus goals per game are the norm, it isn't.

Weder

Al DeFlorio

upprdeck
You go 3x3 to try and remove most of the ties.. no different than soccer deciding that a play at midfield wouldnt even be worthy of a card but in the penalty area is worth a PK that often decides a game. Some things are dumb in all sports. They could also go 5x5 for 5 min then 4x4 for 5 min then 3x3 or something.. But if you create a rule that makes a winner you shouldnt be giving them the same 2 pts but devaluing it in other places. If thats the case then they should be going to 3-2-1 win/Ot/Tie or something.

You should remove the tie by playing the same game with the same rules that resulted in the tie, not some bastardized version of it. If the tie stands up, so what? It's the fair outcome. 2/1/0 still the best.

Sudden death is not playing by the same rules, though. Should it be like soccer where you play the full extra period?

I wouldn't mind 3v3 whole period as much as 3v3 sudden death. And I like sudden death. But it's too random in 3v3.

marty

Dafatone
What does it count as for RPI? The pairwise is practically just RPI with the occasional wrinkle. Looks like a tie to me, or maybe the same 55% stuff.

Good fodder for JTW's students, but not so much for my vintage brain.

George64

Al DeFlorio

Did Samuel Beckett dream this nonsense up? Just play a five skaters on a side, sudden death overtime for ten minutes, and you either get a deserving winner or a deserved tie. No gimmicks. Just real hockey. Worked fine for a lot of years. And everybody understood it.

Agreed!

After a few more hours of watching ESPN+ and listening to Grady quote Coach as saying if 3x3 is so wonderful then why not use it in the post season... it finally occurred to me that no one will be going into the post season with any 5x5 sudden death experience. Ugh!

ugarte
love 3x3 sorry! (do not love 55% but would probably be fine if we could negotiate this to, say, 70%)

Disagree. It's dumb and anti-climactic.

How much better would it have been to have 5x4 for overtime tonight and 100% of a win instead of 55% of a tie?

I could get on board with 4x4, five minutes, no sudden death.

Attended tonight. First game together at Lynah with my freshman daughter. Big night. We mostly controlled action but typically cannot finish. Question-is there a return to Alaska? The university would not possibly allow that unless it was in January. These trips UA makes are anathema to a so-called education. Actually a bit disappointed we participated in that. They’ve been on the road 4,000 miles-away from home for like 3 weeks. Nuts.

arugula
Attended tonight. First game together at Lynah with my freshman daughter. Big night. We mostly controlled action but typically cannot finish. Question-is there a return to Alaska? The university would not possibly allow that unless it was in January. These trips UA makes are anathema to a so-called education. Actually a bit disappointed we participated in that. They’ve been on the road 4,000 miles-away from home for like 3 weeks. Nuts.

Maybe not as big a deal these days with Zoom and the like.

scoop85

arugula
Attended tonight. First game together at Lynah with my freshman daughter. Big night. We mostly controlled action but typically cannot finish. Question-is there a return to Alaska? The university would not possibly allow that unless it was in January. These trips UA makes are anathema to a so-called education. Actually a bit disappointed we participated in that. They’ve been on the road 4,000 miles-away from home for like 3 weeks. Nuts.

Maybe not as big a deal these days with Zoom and the like.

Exactly. Hard to say when half the schools in America charged full tuition for a year of online college

ugarte
love 3x3 sorry! (do not love 55% but would probably be fine if we could negotiate this to, say, 70%)

I've just barely got used to the 3-2-1-0 point system in international/European hockey, but accepting an OT win as 55% of a win is a lot harder than 2/3 of a win. (I'd be reasonably happy with a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system where you lost a point for going to OT, and the shootout after a tie counted for 1/4 as much as the rest of the game.)

i just like watching firewagon hockey. it's fun. i don't want the whole game to be open ice but it's a wild way to finish and really hard to keep scoreless.

feel getting a pair of OT wins against UAF is going to be bad in the long run for COpp but maybe they are good and will sting enough teams with Ls. (annoyingly, Clarkson went 3-1)

jtwcornell91

ugarte
love 3x3 sorry! (do not love 55% but would probably be fine if we could negotiate this to, say, 70%)

I've just barely got used to the 3-2-1-0 point system in international/European hockey, but accepting an OT win as 55% of a win is a lot harder than 2/3 of a win. (I'd be reasonably happy with a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system where you lost a point for going to OT, and the shootout after a tie counted for 1/4 as much as the rest of the game.)

+1

IIRC, a few years ago we played Wisconsin to triple OT in the NCAA semifinals. Remembering this I’m torn.

Of course it was a single elimination game, so the in-season scenario did not apply. But had the game been in-season, I’d want to reward both teams for such a heroic show, OTOH, I’d @lso want to make the stakes high.

Al DeFlorio

Weder

Al DeFlorio

upprdeck
You go 3x3 to try and remove most of the ties.. no different than soccer deciding that a play at midfield wouldnt even be worthy of a card but in the penalty area is worth a PK that often decides a game. Some things are dumb in all sports. They could also go 5x5 for 5 min then 4x4 for 5 min then 3x3 or something.. But if you create a rule that makes a winner you shouldnt be giving them the same 2 pts but devaluing it in other places. If thats the case then they should be going to 3-2-1 win/Ot/Tie or something.

You should remove the tie by playing the same game with the same rules that resulted in the tie, not some bastardized version of it. If the tie stands up, so what? It's the fair outcome. 2/1/0 still the best.

Sudden death is not playing by the same rules, though. Should it be like soccer where you play the full extra period?

Read the NCAA overtime rules for soccer: Two ten-minute SUDDEN DEATH periods. In a game where goals are scarce as hen's teeth, like hockey and soccer, sudden death is appropriate. In lacrosse, where twenty-plus goals per game are the norm, it isn't.

Ah, I don't really follow college soccer and didn't realize OT was sudden death.

Swampy

jtwcornell91

ugarte
love 3x3 sorry! (do not love 55% but would probably be fine if we could negotiate this to, say, 70%)

I've just barely got used to the 3-2-1-0 point system in international/European hockey, but accepting an OT win as 55% of a win is a lot harder than 2/3 of a win. (I'd be reasonably happy with a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system where you lost a point for going to OT, and the shootout after a tie counted for 1/4 as much as the rest of the game.)

+1

This was discussed 5 years ago. Depressing that college hockey has followed the poor implementation of the NHL

[elf.elynah.com]

LGR14

KeithK

jkahn

Trotsky

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

[elf.elynah.com]
No. No, no, no, no, no. No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I agree with Greg, and the biggest thing that has bugged me about the NHL system is that each game should have the same total point value. Is winning one game in overtime and losing another in overtime really 50% better than a 3 period win and a 3 period loss? Now that the NHL has gone to the exciting but gimmicky 3 on 3 overtime, at least I'd like to see a 3-2-1-0 point value for NHL games, with the 2-1 covering both overtimes and shootouts. In effect then, an o't or shootout win would only be worth 1.33x what it was worth in the old system where teams divided 2 points.

The non-constant point value is a horrible feature of the OT rules and has been since the beginning. Neil and/or Jeff's suggestions would at least eliminate this quirk. But getting rid of the OT gimmicks is really the answer.

I've also never liked the idea of playing with a different rule set in OT than used in the rest of the game. Adding gimmicky rules in special situations to add "excitement" just diminishes the game. If OT with fewer than five skaters per side is a good idea then why not use it in the playoffs too?

For the same reason that we don't use 20 minute overtimes in the regular season: it's just different.

In addition, teams have a reason to try to play for a tie in the regular season. Having 10 skaters on the ice allows a team playing for the tie to completely clamp down and clog everything. This is bad from an entertainment perspective and from a perspective that argues we want teams to play for the win.

Contrastingly, neither team plays for a tie in the postseason (obviously), and thus 5-on-5 isn't a hinderance.

Turn on Caps-Penguins for OT right now: both teams are going to be flying up and down. That will not happen in the ECAC (unless you get a situation like Harvard-Cornell a couple years ago where both teams really want the win and have nothing to lose)

nshapiro

Swampy

jtwcornell91

ugarte
love 3x3 sorry! (do not love 55% but would probably be fine if we could negotiate this to, say, 70%)

I've just barely got used to the 3-2-1-0 point system in international/European hockey, but accepting an OT win as 55% of a win is a lot harder than 2/3 of a win. (I'd be reasonably happy with a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system where you lost a point for going to OT, and the shootout after a tie counted for 1/4 as much as the rest of the game.)

+1

This was discussed 5 years ago. Depressing that college hockey has followed the poor implementation of the NHL

[elf.elynah.com]

LGR14

KeithK

jkahn

Trotsky

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

[elf.elynah.com]
No. No, no, no, no, no. No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I agree with Greg, and the biggest thing that has bugged me about the NHL system is that each game should have the same total point value. Is winning one game in overtime and losing another in overtime really 50% better than a 3 period win and a 3 period loss? Now that the NHL has gone to the exciting but gimmicky 3 on 3 overtime, at least I'd like to see a 3-2-1-0 point value for NHL games, with the 2-1 covering both overtimes and shootouts. In effect then, an o't or shootout win would only be worth 1.33x what it was worth in the old system where teams divided 2 points.

The non-constant point value is a horrible feature of the OT rules and has been since the beginning. Neil and/or Jeff's suggestions would at least eliminate this quirk. But getting rid of the OT gimmicks is really the answer.

I've also never liked the idea of playing with a different rule set in OT than used in the rest of the game. Adding gimmicky rules in special situations to add "excitement" just diminishes the game. If OT with fewer than five skaters per side is a good idea then why not use it in the playoffs too?

For the same reason that we don't use 20 minute overtimes in the regular season: it's just different.

In addition, teams have a reason to try to play for a tie in the regular season. Having 10 skaters on the ice allows a team playing for the tie to completely clamp down and clog everything. This is bad from an entertainment perspective and from a perspective that argues we want teams to play for the win.

Contrastingly, neither team plays for a tie in the postseason (obviously), and thus 5-on-5 isn't a hinderance.

Turn on Caps-Penguins for OT right now: both teams are going to be flying up and down. That will not happen in the ECAC (unless you get a situation like Harvard-Cornell a couple years ago where both teams really want the win and have nothing to lose)

Yeah, 3 on 3 is so good that with a penalty they add players rather than subtract. They go to 4 on 3 for a penalty. When the penalty is over, it's 4 on 4 till the next whistle. Then it's back to 3 on 3. Guess what they do for 2 men down.

Boy do I love this rule.

I'm just too old, I guess.

Jim Hyla

nshapiro

Swampy

jtwcornell91

ugarte
love 3x3 sorry! (do not love 55% but would probably be fine if we could negotiate this to, say, 70%)

I've just barely got used to the 3-2-1-0 point system in international/European hockey, but accepting an OT win as 55% of a win is a lot harder than 2/3 of a win. (I'd be reasonably happy with a 5-4-3-2-1-0 system where you lost a point for going to OT, and the shootout after a tie counted for 1/4 as much as the rest of the game.)

+1

This was discussed 5 years ago. Depressing that college hockey has followed the poor implementation of the NHL

[elf.elynah.com]

LGR14

KeithK

jkahn

Trotsky

nshapiro
I am ok with the shootout, but the effect should be de-emphasized, especially the creation of the extra point in the standings.

Each game should be worth 5 points -
5 - regulation win
4 - overtime win
3 - shootout win
2 - shootout loss
1 - overtime loss
0 - regulation loss

[elf.elynah.com]
No. No, no, no, no, no. No.

The ECAC does this one thing exactly right, and everyone from mites to the NHL should adopt it and then leave it alone forever.

I agree with Greg, and the biggest thing that has bugged me about the NHL system is that each game should have the same total point value. Is winning one game in overtime and losing another in overtime really 50% better than a 3 period win and a 3 period loss? Now that the NHL has gone to the exciting but gimmicky 3 on 3 overtime, at least I'd like to see a 3-2-1-0 point value for NHL games, with the 2-1 covering both overtimes and shootouts. In effect then, an o't or shootout win would only be worth 1.33x what it was worth in the old system where teams divided 2 points.

The non-constant point value is a horrible feature of the OT rules and has been since the beginning. Neil and/or Jeff's suggestions would at least eliminate this quirk. But getting rid of the OT gimmicks is really the answer.

I've also never liked the idea of playing with a different rule set in OT than used in the rest of the game. Adding gimmicky rules in special situations to add "excitement" just diminishes the game. If OT with fewer than five skaters per side is a good idea then why not use it in the playoffs too?

For the same reason that we don't use 20 minute overtimes in the regular season: it's just different.

In addition, teams have a reason to try to play for a tie in the regular season. Having 10 skaters on the ice allows a team playing for the tie to completely clamp down and clog everything. This is bad from an entertainment perspective and from a perspective that argues we want teams to play for the win.

Contrastingly, neither team plays for a tie in the postseason (obviously), and thus 5-on-5 isn't a hinderance.

Turn on Caps-Penguins for OT right now: both teams are going to be flying up and down. That will not happen in the ECAC (unless you get a situation like Harvard-Cornell a couple years ago where both teams really want the win and have nothing to lose)

Yeah, 3 on 3 is so good that with a penalty they add players rather than subtract. They go to 4 on 3 for a penalty. When the penalty is over, it's 4 on 4 till the next whistle. Then it's back to 3 on 3. Guess what they do for 2 men down.

Boy do I love this rule.

I'm just too old, I guess.

To be fair, penalties are handled in basically the only reasonably way given the other constraints. But monkeying with OT seems like basically a problem in search of a solution. (Between College Football's 2-point-conversion derby, MLB putting a runner on second base in extra innings, and 3x3/shootouts in hockey, it seems like there's a lot of messing with the post-regulation rules.)

marty

Dafatone
What does it count as for RPI? The pairwise is practically just RPI with the occasional wrinkle. Looks like a tie to me, or maybe the same 55% stuff.

Good fodder for JTW's students, but not so much for my vintage brain.

We're working on the page proofs now, but here's the preprint: [arxiv.org]