Talk:2006 Memorial Cup

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ice Hockey

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

Canada: New Brunswick / Sport List‑class Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
List	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Brunswick.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Round Robin Standings

So as not to contravene WP:3RR I raise this question here - the Petes finished third in the round-robin by goal difference. Should they not be listed in third in round-robin standings in spite of losing to the Giants in the tie-breaker? I believe that officially the standings remain the same although obviously the Giants advanced. See also 2002 Memorial Cup, where the Tigres finished fourth but won the tie-breaker. BoojiBoy 00:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what it looks like is that goal difference is not a tiebreaker. It looks like they go directly to a tiebreaking game. Is there a rule in the memorial cup about this? Kingjeff 00:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goal differential is the tiebreaker; that's why Peterborough was the "home" team for the tiebreaker game and why Quebec went straight to the final. You just can't get eliminated on goal differential, hence the tiebreaker game. BoojiBoy 00:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official Memorial Cup website has it the other way around. Kingjeff 00:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird, since the 2002 Official Site has it the other way around. BoojiBoy 00:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 2006 page is the correct way because the tiebreaking game is the only tiebreaker and goal difference has no impact on the tiebreaking. Kingjeff 01:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever we do, it should be standardized throughout the Memorial Cup articles. I'll post something on WP Ice Hockey and see if we can come to a conclusion/vote. BoojiBoy 01:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tie-breaker is a tie-breaker, not a playoff game. I'd say put Peterborough in last, but that's my two cents worth. --

Earl Andrew - talk 02:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Goal differential only decides who has home ice. The only tie breaker in this scenario is the tie-breaker game itself. I would list Vancouver in third, Peterborough in fourth. Resolute 04:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking more on it, the CHL treats the tiebreaker as a playoff game, not part of the round robin. Its pretty much the equivalent of the NCAA buy-in game. It is kinda on both sides of the fence. I think I'd lean more towards sticking with the format used in 2002, and listing the tiebreaker as a playoff game. Resolute 04:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any vote is needed. What we should do is do it based on what the tiebreaker rule(s) is and go with that. Kingjeff 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that the rules are not clear. BoojiBoy 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we discussing this at all? It's neither our place nor our job to tell the Memorial Cup organizers how they're supposed to list their standings. How they do it -- in whatever year is pertinent -- is how we should list it. How it was done in 2002 is irrelevant if they've changed their methodology. Ravenswing 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an italicized note to the round-robin section. Does that work for everyone? BoojiBoy 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what it looks like, the rule is very clear. But someone along the line assumed that goal difference was the tiebreaker. Kingjeff 20:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if the Remparts lose and fall to a 1-2 record with the Giants and Petes, they'd remain the second-seeded team under a tiebreaking formula in which the three teams' results against Moncton would be thrown out and the teams' goals for against each other would be divided by the sum of their goals for and goals against. So in the event of a three-way tie at 1-2, the Remparts' percentage would be .571, followed by Peterborough at .500 and Vancouver at .429." From [1]. BoojiBoy 20:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is for a three-way tie however, not what did actually occur. Resolute 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the formula for tie-breaking is still the same. BoojiBoy 23:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the tiebreaking formula the only tiebreaking rule?

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.chl.ca/CHLMemorialCup06/home.html
- In 2006 Memorial Cup on 2011-05-26 02:08:14, 404 Not Found
- In 2006 Memorial Cup on 2011-06-14 05:19:17, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]