Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

the NCHC shootouts ?


Recommended Posts

  • 9 months later...

I'm wondering who holds a tie breaker in a situation where the standings are as they are now. We are tied for first in points with two other teams yet we have one less loss. So does the less losses give us the decision or would head to head trump that?

I.e. what is the order of tie breakers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it stands now, I believe we have the tiebreaker against Omaha, and if we split with Miami we would have more wins than them should the 4 games before that come out even. Our winning percentage is better right now than both, but that obviously can change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Most wins" is second on the list and accomplishes the same thing.  

That is not correct.  As an example, look at the current standings:

 

Three teams tied with 36pts.  All three have the same number of wins.  We have one less loss.  That should, at some point in the tiebreaking order, be considered.  It is not.  It certainly should be a consideration before a coin toss?  The league missed the fairway on this one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

They go by win percentage too. Of which UND is leading right now. Its not going to come down to a coin toss. Settle down the NCHC didn't miss anything.

Again that is not correct.  They go by win percentage in head-to-head competition not in overall conference record.  While head-to-head win percentage does take in to account the number of losses, under these current tie breaking rules if the difference in losses between to tied teams came from outside of head-to-head play then the difference in the number of losses would not be considered above a coin toss. 

There is a little bit of an exception to this from the 5th tiebreaker rule which states,

"If not determined by (1) or (2) or (3) or (4), the seeding for the NCHC Tournament shall be determined by comparison of the winning percentages of the teams tied in the standings against the remaining highest ranked NCHC teams, successively, until the determination is accomplished or all NCHC regular-season contests have been considered"

In this rule, if teams had a different number of losses, then mathematically speaking that would be flushed out before they moved through a head-to-head comparison of every other team in the league but it is by no means a direct measure of difference in overall league losses. 

 

In any case overall league wining percentage is not a tiebreaking criteria..

 

... not sure what compelled you to tell me to "settle down" as I am merely pointing out a flaw in the tiebreaking rules?  Well a flaw if you believe as I do that losses should be a criteria before a coin toss...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again that is not correct. They go by win percentage in head-to-head competition not in overall conference record. While head-to-head win percentage does take in to account the number of losses, under these current tie breaking rules if the difference in losses between to tied teams came from outside of head-to-head play then the difference in the number of losses would not be considered above a coin toss.

There is a little bit of an exception to this from the 5th tiebreaker rule which states,

"If not determined by (1) or (2) or (3) or (4), the seeding for the NCHC Tournament shall be determined by comparison of the winning percentages of the teams tied in the standings against the remaining highest ranked NCHC teams, successively, until the determination is accomplished or all NCHC regular-season contests have been considered"

In this rule, if teams had a different number of losses, then mathematically speaking that would be flushed out before they moved through a head-to-head comparison of every other team in the league but it is by no means a direct measure of difference in overall league losses.

In any case overall league wining percentage is not a tiebreaking criteria..

... not sure what compelled you to tell me to "settle down" as I am merely pointing out a flaw in the tiebreaking rules? Well a flaw if you believe as I do that losses should be a criteria before a coin toss...

I understand it all pretty simple. If UND and UNO are tied for first but UNO swept UND UNO should get first. Doesnt matter who has less losses one bit. You could tie every game doesnt make you any good. Even though you have no losses.

There is no flaw. If 2 teams are tied. It shouldnt matter who has less losses. It should matter who won more games against that other team. And if those two teams spliy it goes to goals scored.

If the season ended today UND would be the number one seed. They have the best win loss vs omaha. Split with Miami but wins in the goal differential.

It basically will never come down to a coin toss. Its how well you did against the top of the league (the other best teams). The "number of losses is already calculated with how many points a team gets. And could make an argument against shoot outs. I dont consider it a "flaw". Just a matter of opinion. Youd basically be arguing two ties are better than one win and one loss when basically it should be equal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it all pretty simple. If UND and UNO are tied for first but UNO swept UND UNO should get first. Doesnt matter who has less losses one bit. You could tie every game doesnt make you any good. Even though you have no losses.

There is no flaw. If 2 teams are tied. It shouldnt matter who has less losses. It should matter who won more games against that other team. And if those two teams spliy it goes to goals scored.

If the season ended today UND would be the number one seed. They have the best win loss vs omaha. Split with Miami but wins in the goal differential.

It basically will never come down to a coin toss. Its how well you did against the top of the league (the other best teams). The "number of losses is already calculated with how many points a team gets. And could make an argument against shoot outs. I dont consider it a "flaw". Just a matter of opinion. Youd basically be arguing two ties are better than one win and one loss when basically it should be equal.

I agree, obviously head-to-head is first, you can certainly argue goal differential should be second. I'm not inclined to think that is better than overall conference wining percentage. After all, CONFERENCE points is the the main bogey here so CONFERENCE losses seems comencerate with the main goal of most CONFERENCE points. And further I think losing a game is a bigger deal than whether or not you or the other guy happen to have the empty netter go in vs sail wide...

In any case if you look at the current situation I think it is very conceivable that a tie breaker goes beyond head-to-head points AND head-to-head goals. Heck look at all the OT games we gave had lately. You get splits with two OT finishes and you have even goals right there.

I'm just saying it should be there somewhere and I think it should be #2...

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I agree, obviously head-to-head is first, you can certainly argue goal differential should be second. I'm not inclined to think that is better than overall conference wining percentage. After all, CONFERENCE points is the the main bogey here so CONFERENCE losses seems comencerate with the main goal of most CONFERENCE points. And further I think losing a game is a bigger deal than whether or not you or the other guy happen to have the empty netter go in vs sail wide...
In any case if you look at the current situation I think it is very conceivable that a tie breaker goes beyond head-to-head points AND head-to-head goals. Heck look at all the OT games we gave had lately. You get splits with two OT finishes and you have even goals right there.
I'm just saying it should be there somewhere and I think it should be #2...

 

Hi, yababy8.

 

In the current standings, and based on the tiebreaker procedures you posted, UND comes out on top with rule 3:

 

3.   If not determined by (1) or (2), the seeding for the NCHC Tournament shall be the team with the best NCHC regular-season winning percentage among the games played against the other teams tied in the standings, regardless of the schedule being balanced among the teams tied;

 

Rule 1 does not apply because UND, UNO, and Miami have not yet played an equal number of games in the "round robin". Rule 2 is a wash because all three teams have an equal number of wins in the conference.

 

Rule 3 essentially considers our 1 less loss an advantage since that gives UND a winning percentage of 67% while the other two teams have a winning percentage of 64%.

 

I hope I didn't confuse things further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...