IVY League standings

[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

[Jim Hyla]

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.

[French Rage]

Yeah that's dumb as all hell.

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

[KenP]

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

[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.

[Trotsky]

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.

[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.

[Give My Regards]

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.

[Swampy]

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

[billhoward]

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.

[nshapiro]

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

[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.

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.

[Al DeFlorio]

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.

[Trotsky]

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?

[Trotsky]

It might have been the B1G.