3-on-3 overtime and the RPI & PWR

[ursusminor]

on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout.  Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore.  if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. https://www.ecachockey.com/men/2021-22/OT_Formats_Point_Structures.pdf I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

[billhoward]

Fans and parents help pay for sports but sports are really for and about the athletes playing them. So it would be important to know if players like OT 4x4s or 3x3s and shootouts. Or starting the 12th inning with a runner on second base (first and second?), or the ball on the opponent's 35 yard line, etcetera.

I never thought snowboarding was stupid (it helped keep ski resorts alive), I was dubious about it as a competitive sport and now I think it's a beautiful sport at its highest level. Ditto dual moguls skiing., Sports should change over time: new sports elevated to high level competition, legacy sports with variants that make it more interesting.

I am unalterably opposed to the NCAA lacrosse championship being decided by the first goal in OT. No TV schedule is so tight you don't have room for a 4- or 5-minute overtime, best score at the end winning. Because the odds are pretty good there'll be an untied score at the end of the first OT.

[upprdeck]

3x3 is also great for gambling since it means goals more often and people have money riding on goals alot.

[Jim Hyla]

on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout.  Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore.  if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. https://www.ecachockey.com/men/2021-22/OT_Formats_Point_Structures.pdf I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

So let's allow fighting, many fans have shown they like that as well.

Pros go for the almighty dollar. I'd like to think, wrongly I know, that in college you play, and watch, for the game.

[jtwcornell91]

on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout.  Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore.  if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. https://www.ecachockey.com/men/2021-22/OT_Formats_Point_Structures.pdf I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

Perhaps the most annoying part of all is when a series like this weekend is described by the press as a sweep, when we know it was worth about as much as a split.  Sort of like when MLS first started and they gave 3 points for a game win and 1 point for a shootout win, and then the LA Times referred to the Galaxy as undefeated when they had several shootout wins.

[Jim Hyla]

on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout.  Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore.  if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. https://www.ecachockey.com/men/2021-22/OT_Formats_Point_Structures.pdf I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

Perhaps the most annoying part of all is when a series like this weekend is described by the press as a sweep, when we know it was worth about as much as a split.  Sort of like when MLS first started and they gave 3 points for a game win and 1 point for a shootout win, and then the LA Times referred to the Galaxy as undefeated when they had several shootout wins.

But of course it was a sweep. Regardless of the twisted way of assigning points/percentages, 2 wins is a sweep and the Galaxy was undefeated. That is unless they can somehow redefine defeated. I'm not in favor of using math to change the meaning of words. Especially when the math can change year to year.

If you don't want to say undefeated, then come up with a different word, but don't change the meaning of the word for that season, when the powers can again change the giving of points for this season.

[jtwcornell91]

If you don't want to say undefeated, then come up with a different word, but don't change the meaning of the word for that season, when the powers can again change the giving of points for this season.

Presumably the accurate phrase would be "perfect record".  But you're right, "undefeated" typically also includes teams with ties, but in soccer three ties is equivalent to a win and two losses, so it doesn't mean as much.  Looking back at https://globalsportsarchive.com/team/soccer/los-angeles-galaxy/1483/ the Galaxy went 10-0-2 in their first twelve games, but the LA Times was reporting it as 12-0.  (There's also the complication of the US convention of writing W-L-T which is hard to extend to multiple outcomes; in Europe they write W-D-L in the standings tables, which is more easily extended to RW-OW-OL-RL or even RW-OTW-T-OTL-RL as in the case of the NCAA, or RW-OTW-SOW-SOL-OTL-RL in the 5-4-3-2-1-0 point system some of us have advocated.)

[Swampy]

on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout.  Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore.  if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. https://www.ecachockey.com/men/2021-22/OT_Formats_Point_Structures.pdf I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

Perhaps the most annoying part of all is when a series like this weekend is described by the press as a sweep, when we know it was worth about as much as a split.  Sort of like when MLS first started and they gave 3 points for a game win and 1 point for a shootout win, and then the LA Times referred to the Galaxy as undefeated when they had several shootout wins.

But of course it was a sweep. Regardless of the twisted way of assigning points/percentages, 2 wins is a sweep and the Galaxy was undefeated. That is unless they can somehow redefine defeated. I'm not in favor of using math to change the meaning of words. Especially when the math can change year to year.

If you don't want to say undefeated, then come up with a different word, but don't change the meaning of the word for that season, when the powers can again change the giving of points for this season.

"Undefeated, Untied"?

[Jim Hyla]

on the flip side since hockey is also a fan sport.. Talked with kids at multiple schools the last few days and they love the 3x3 and shootout.  Most fans do and there are far more casual fans than hardcore.  if you remove the PWR issues it is fun to watch for many people.

I think that is the logic, namely that they are trying to please kids and those who are not hardcore fans. Such people like these gimmicks, just due to the excitement. The NCAA agrees with most people who actually pay attention to these details, namely 3x3 isn't really what should decide the game, so they award 45% of a win to each team and leave just 10% of a win up for grabs.

BTW, the women's NCAA and ECAC schemes are different from the men's. https://www.ecachockey.com/men/2021-22/OT_Formats_Point_Structures.pdf I wonder if the .66 and .34 PWR/RPI contribution, as opposed to 2/3 and 1/3, for games decided in OT games is correct.

Perhaps the most annoying part of all is when a series like this weekend is described by the press as a sweep, when we know it was worth about as much as a split.  Sort of like when MLS first started and they gave 3 points for a game win and 1 point for a shootout win, and then the LA Times referred to the Galaxy as undefeated when they had several shootout wins.

But of course it was a sweep. Regardless of the twisted way of assigning points/percentages, 2 wins is a sweep and the Galaxy was undefeated. That is unless they can somehow redefine defeated. I'm not in favor of using math to change the meaning of words. Especially when the math can change year to year.

If you don't want to say undefeated, then come up with a different word, but don't change the meaning of the word for that season, when the powers can again change the giving of points for this season.

"Undefeated, Untied"?

That defines an all win team, but doesn't have anything to do with the "undefeated" Galaxy. What do you propose calling them?

[The Rancor]

So, Cornell still has The Belt?

[ursusminor]

So, Cornell still has The Belt?

Yes.