Ivy Title

[kingpin248]

Hopefully the coming change in playoff format will give the ECAC an opportunity to rethink its tiebreaker system.  The tiebreakers used to be record against the top four and top eight, then were changed to top five and ten.  So what's next - top six and top (or bottom) twelve?

This is what I would like to see:

(1) Head-to-head record.
(2) Wins.  (This is actually the first tiebreaker in the NHL, before H2H.)
(3) Goal difference in conference games.
(4) Goals scored in conference games.

I'm not sure the ECAC would go for (3) or (4), as it might be seen to encourage running up scores.  Also, there's a problem with using wins as a tiebreaker - it follows that when comparing two teams with equal points and equal games played, a team with more wins will also have more losses.

And besides, the conference doesn't exactly have a track record of sound thinking on these matters, does it? :-)

[KeithK]

The issue with the ECAC is not what the tiebreakers are, it's how to apply them in crazy situations. For instance, in a four way tie, if in H2H tiebreaker Team A has 7 points, Team D has 5 and Teams B&C have 6 each, does Team A win the tiebreaker and recheck from the beginning with A-D? Does D lose and have A-C start over? Or does A win, D lose and B&C start over?
And what do you do if there's a tie for 5th which depends on Top-10 record and a tie for 10th which depends on Top-5? This has been explained before (Whelan? Bill Fenwick?) but it's not exactly a clean system.  I [I}think[\\I] there is a completely deterministic way of doing the tiebreakers but I've never been able to code it.

I would assume that the ECAC will go back to Top-4 and Top-8 tiebreakers with the new playoff system next year.

[jtwcornell91]

The ECAC did resolve the "infinite loop" situation a few years ago, and it was on the website back when Tim Danehy was running it and it was called ECAC HockeyNet.  Here it is (and yes, this is implemented in my ECAC playoff possibilties scripts):

If there is a tie involving 5th/6th that requires application of   the third tie-breaker, record against Top 10, and there is also a tie   involving 10th/11th that requires application of the second   tie-breaker, record against Top 5, then the following procedure shall   be used: The tie involving 10th/11th shall be broken using record   against all teams above and included in the tie involving 5th/6th. If   this fails the tie involving 5th/6th shall be broken using record   against all teams above and included in the tie involving 10th/11th.   If this also fails the tie involving 10th/11th shall be broken using   record against all teams above the tie involving 10th/11th. If this   also fails the tie involving 5th/6th shall be broken using   head-to-head goal differential. If this also fails the tie involving   10th/11th shall be broken using head-to-head goal differential. If   this also fails the tie involving 5th/6th shall be broken using goal   differential against all teams above the tie involving 5th/6th. If   this also fails the tie involving 10th/11th shall be broken using goal   differential against all teams above and included in the tie involving   5th/6th. If this also fails the tie involving 5th/6th shall be broken   using goal differential against all teams above and included in the   tie for 10th/11th. If this also fails the tie involving 10th/11th   shall be broken using goal differential against all teams above the   tie involving 10th/11th. Again once one or more teams are separated   from any others the tie-breakers are re-applied in each group of   remaining tied teams starting with head-to-head record.

Actually, when you think about it, it's the most sensible and straightforward solution to the problem. ;-)