Yale game postponed

[Trotsky]

Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway.  There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked.  And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams.  It's a wash.  And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing.  Greater Good.

Best 2-of-3 format makes it quite likely the better team advances. In any event, I don't understand why it's better for a top-4 team to ensure they play against one of the 5-8th place teams. The PWR accounts for strength of opponent, so it's a wash. I like the current format's added incentive to finishing in the top 4. Your alternative format adds incentive to finishing in the top 8, but that makes things pretty boring at the top. Also, playoff seeding often comes down to tiebreaks, and it's a lot more acceptable to have a tiebreaker like goal differential decide bye vs. no bye as opposed to deciding season continues vs. season over.

I don't agree with any of this, but opinions vary.

[Al DeFlorio]

Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway.  There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked.  And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams.  It's a wash.  And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing.  Greater Good.

Best 2-of-3 format makes it quite likely the better team advances. In any event, I don't understand why it's better for a top-4 team to ensure they play against one of the 5-8th place teams. The PWR accounts for strength of opponent, so it's a wash. I like the current format's added incentive to finishing in the top 4. Your alternative format adds incentive to finishing in the top 8, but that makes things pretty boring at the top. Also, playoff seeding often comes down to tiebreaks, and it's a lot more acceptable to have a tiebreaker like goal differential decide bye vs. no bye as opposed to deciding season continues vs. season over.

I don't agree with any of this, but opinions vary.

My reaction, exactly.  Bottom-third teams stay home.  Obvious.

[RichH]

Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway.  There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked.  And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams.  It's a wash.  And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing.  Greater Good.

Best 2-of-3 format makes it quite likely the better team advances. In any event, I don't understand why it's better for a top-4 team to ensure they play against one of the 5-8th place teams. The PWR accounts for strength of opponent, so it's a wash. I like the current format's added incentive to finishing in the top 4. Your alternative format adds incentive to finishing in the top 8, but that makes things pretty boring at the top. Also, playoff seeding often comes down to tiebreaks, and it's a lot more acceptable to have a tiebreaker like goal differential decide bye vs. no bye as opposed to deciding season continues vs. season over.

I don't agree with any of this, but opinions vary.

My reaction, exactly.  Bottom-third teams stay home.  Obvious.

And the incentive for a 1-4 finish is still there in having a home playoff series.

[BearLover]

Blow away the First Round*, only take the top 8, and use the 13 days between the end of the present RS and the beginning of the QF to shake out all the unplayed games.

* Do this anyway.  There is enough churn on the bottom now that we don't have the old problem that somebody never got to play because they always sucked.  And, having done it, we could also add another few games for the ECAC in post-COVID bringing them to parity with the rest of the NC$$.

This structure would be quite a bit worse for teams like Cornell, which in most years gets to enjoy a bye week as reward for a strong regular season.

More than counterbalanced by the fact that the first round ensures a team playing well will play the top four teams.  It's a wash.  And our benefit is no reason not to do the right thing.  Greater Good.

Best 2-of-3 format makes it quite likely the better team advances. In any event, I don't understand why it's better for a top-4 team to ensure they play against one of the 5-8th place teams. The PWR accounts for strength of opponent, so it's a wash. I like the current format's added incentive to finishing in the top 4. Your alternative format adds incentive to finishing in the top 8, but that makes things pretty boring at the top. Also, playoff seeding often comes down to tiebreaks, and it's a lot more acceptable to have a tiebreaker like goal differential decide bye vs. no bye as opposed to deciding season continues vs. season over.

I don't agree with any of this, but opinions vary.

My reaction, exactly.  Bottom-third teams stay home.  Obvious.

And the incentive for a 1-4 finish is still there in having a home playoff series.

Under the current format, there is a big incentive for 1-4 (bye week) and a small one for 5-8 (home playoff series). Under Trotsky's proposed format, there is a small incentive for 1-4 (home playoff series) and a big one for 5-8 (season continues). I prefer the big jump between 4 and 5 rather than between 8 and 9. It's far more exciting when the teams at the top of the standings are competing for the big reward than the teams at the bottom.

[Dafatone]

I'm torn between "a rest week is swell" and "the bottom four teams probably should be out."

[adamw]

Imagine what will happen if there aren't two weekends with open dates, and Brown has to fit in both Colgate and Cornell for games midweek.

Princeton and Harvard are currently scheduled to finish the regular season with 3 games in 3 nights - the last one being at 4p Sunday, following 7p games the night before for each. Harvard being the road team.

[RichH]

Under the current format, there is a big incentive for 1-4 (bye week) and a small one for 5-8 (home playoff series). Under Trotsky's proposed format, there is a small incentive for 1-4 (home playoff series) and a big one for 5-8 (season continues). I prefer the big jump between 4 and 5 rather than between 8 and 9. It's far more exciting when the teams at the top of the standings are competing for the big reward than the teams at the bottom.

As a person who has been calling for an 8-team field for at least 10 years (probably double that given how I judge time passing), I strongly disagree with this. 1) The teams at the top of the standings are usually competing for a big reward of an at-large NCAA bid anyway. 2) Home-ice is more coveted than you suggest (see 1996: five teams slugging for four slots) 3) The criteria for being a playoff team shouldn't be "complete the season," (global health pandemic years excluded). The fact that any every team that goes 2-20 can coast to a playoff bid grinds my gears a bit. If you install a playoff cutoff, More teams will play desperate instead of mailing it in and it will make for a more competitive stretch run.

[Al DeFlorio]

Under the current format, there is a big incentive for 1-4 (bye week) and a small one for 5-8 (home playoff series). Under Trotsky's proposed format, there is a small incentive for 1-4 (home playoff series) and a big one for 5-8 (season continues). I prefer the big jump between 4 and 5 rather than between 8 and 9. It's far more exciting when the teams at the top of the standings are competing for the big reward than the teams at the bottom.

As a person who has been calling for an 8-team field for at least 10 years (probably double that given how I judge time passing), I strongly disagree with this. 1) The teams at the top of the standings are usually competing for a big reward of an at-large NCAA bid anyway. 2) Home-ice is more coveted than you suggest (see 1996: five teams slugging for four slots) 3) The criteria for being a playoff team shouldn't be "complete the season," (global health pandemic years excluded). The fact that any every team that goes 2-20 can coast to a playoff bid grinds my gears a bit. If you install a playoff cutoff, More teams will play desperate instead of mailing it in and it will make for a more competitive stretch run.

Right.  Anyone who believes there wasn't much incentive for the top teams to finish as high as possible must not have experienced the years when it was top eight or out.

[ursusminor]

I will throw in my two cents. In my opinion only the top eight should make the playoffs. That still means that the majority of the teams are included. As someone who grew up watching baseball when there were two leagues, each with eight teams, and there were no playoffs, just a World Series, I feel that a championship should just be for the top teams. I have a hard time accepting that teams with an under .500 record should have a chance to advance to the NCAA tourney. Yes, it has happened, but is it really deserved? I don't think so. Perhaps there should be a reward for teams which improve as the year progresses as there once was for the NCAA tourney where record in last N games was included, but other than that, I find it hard to accept large playoffs.

The ECAC had eight teams in the playoffs before the HEA was founded, and then eight teams was fewer than half. They kept eight when the league was reduced to 12 teams, and that became ten and then everyone. Playoff inflation has been going on for a long time.

Also note that the ECAC women's hockey playoffs only include eight teams.

[Swampy]

FWIW, Currently only the top 4 ECAC teams even have winning records.

[George64]

Way back in the day, the entire ECAC tournament took one week.  QF game Tuesday, semi Friday, final Saturday.

1967 post-season:

3/7 ECAC QF
3/9 ECAC SF
3/11 ECAC F
3/16 NCAA SF
3/18 NCAA F

1970 post-season:

3/10 ECAC QF
3/13 ECAC SF
3/14 ECAC F
3/19 NCAA SF
3/21 NCAA F

1970 was quite a year!
.

[George64]

Way back in the day, the entire ECAC tournament took one week.  QF game Tuesday, semi Friday, final Saturday.

1967 post-season:

3/7 ECAC QF
3/9 ECAC SF
3/11 ECAC F
3/16 NCAA SF
3/18 NCAA F

1970 post-season:

3/10 ECAC QF
3/13 ECAC SF
3/14 ECAC F
3/19 NCAA SF
3/21 NCAA F

1970 was quite a year!
.

Backed stopped by Ken Dryden, '67 wasn't a bad year either!
.

[Trotsky]

1970 was quite a year!.

Jesus fuck, Pepperidge farm remembers.