Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

    Originally posted by moe24 View Post
    5 - regulation win
    4 - OT win
    3 - gimmick win
    2 - gimmick loss
    1 - OT loss
    0 - regulation loss
    I like this idea, but looking at the CCHA standings shouldn't give me a seizure.
    Notre Dame Hockey
    Reigning Big Ten Champions
    Reigning CCHA Champions
    Hockey East Lineal Champions

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

      Originally posted by Jeff_Jackson_for_Pres. View Post
      I'm quoting the USCHO article, so the ??? should be directed at the writer.
      You are right; that's pretty bad. Three assertions about how the standings would have changed, and two of them are wrong.

      (1) Michigan would have been ahead of Miami by 7 points? No:
      Michigan: 60 points (20 regulation wins x 3 points = 60 points)
      Miami: 57 points (17 regulation wins, 2 shootout wins, 2 shootout losses: 17 x 3 + 2 x 2 + 2 x 1 = 57 points)

      (2) Ferris State would have finished ahead of Nebraska-Omaha? Yes, but only assuming the tiebreaker is still the same.

      (3) Bowling Green would have finished ahead of Michigan State? No:
      Michigan State: 28 points (7 regulation wins, 3 shootout wins, 1 shootout loss)
      Bowling Green: 25 points (8 regulation/overtime wins, 0 shootout wins, 1 shootout loss)

      "The game of hockey, though much in vogue on the ice in New England and other parts of the United States, is not much known here."

      --The Montreal Gazette, March 4, 1875.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

        Well, this beats my Advanced Stableford System for hockey

        4 pts - win in regulation
        3 pts - win in ot
        2 pts - tie
        1 pt - loss in ot
        0 pts - loss in regulation

        The regular stableford system for shootouts is crazier
        (I see people share my insanity, but they didn't have the name or the half point!)

        5 pts - win in regulation
        3.5 pts - win in OT
        3 pts - win in shootout
        2 pts - loss in shootout
        1.5 pt - loss in ot
        0 pts - loss in regulation
        Last edited by CornwallAce; 09-28-2009, 10:12 PM. Reason: should have read all the posts

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

          Originally posted by Alton View Post


          The better team wins a hockey game about 70 percent of the time. The better team wins a shootout essentially 50 percent of the time. You might as well flip a coin to award the points. If the league wants to have the shootout, fine, but let's not pretend that the shootout helps determine the better team. The less influence the shootout has on the standings the better, and the more influence the actual game has on the standings the better. This change reduces the influence of the shootout and increases the influence of the game, and helps to make the standings more closely based on the quality of the teams in the league.
          This is truly the heart of the matter, and why I don't like the shootout gimmick. And yes, this gives me vertigo reading the standings.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

            Originally posted by Alton View Post
            ???

            Michigan would have had 3 points on Miami.

            Notre Dame 69, Michigan 60, Miami 57, Alaska 47;
            Ohio State 46, Northern Michigan 41, Western Michigan 35, Ferris State 34;
            Nebraska-Omaha 34, Lake Superior State 28, Michigan State 28, Bowling Green 25.



            How? It probably benefits the better team, which is good.

            I assume that you agree that standings should be calculated so that teams are ahead of all of the teams they are better than, and behind all of the teams they are worse than. Of course it is impossible to guarantee this result, but the change clearly makes it more likely, and that is a very good thing.
            ND would have had 72 not 69.
            This is how the standings would have looked if this were implemented a season ago...

            1 ND: 72
            2 Michigan: 60
            3 Miami: 57
            4 Alaska: 50
            5 Ohio State: 49
            6 Northern: 44
            7 Western: 37
            8 UNO: 37
            9 Ferris: 36
            10 Michigan State: 31
            11 Lake State: 29
            12 Bowling Green: 25

            Can anyone care to guess the number of final standings changes that occurred? Actually only one, Michigan State broke a tie for 10th and jumped over Lake State. Other than that all this did was create more of a gap between the leagues three tiered talent of teams. The good teams will find a way to win in the 65 minutes, they might lay an egg every now and then, but more often than not the better team will come away with all the points instead of lucking out in a cointoss shootout.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: CCHA gives out 3 points for non-shootout win

              Originally posted by IrishHockeyFan View Post
              Yup. I can envision only one scenario where I will find the shootout to be palatable, that of an in-season tournament, but in all other phases of our game, no way. But if you're going to do it, this is a better way, IMHO.
              Agreed on both counts.

              The new system creates a 1 point bonus for winning the traditional way. Or, if you prefer, there is a 1 point penalty for the gimmick victory. And regardless of the outcome, all games award the same total number of points. In comparison to last year's system, that's a much healthier incentive structure.

              The CCHA got this one right. We're all quick to criticize the league when it messes up. Nothing wrong with that, but we should also give credit when credit is due.

              Comment

              Working...
              X