No it doesn't. It suggests that one game hockey is more likely to provide an upset than one game in basketball or football. Which, because of the outsized effect of a goalie having a good game, should surprise absolutely no one.
I think you can still have a strength of schedule element while still scoring on a WLT format.
Do you really want to compare Bentley’s W-L-T with BC’s, Western Michigan’s, Quinnipiac’s or Denver’s……let alone UConn’s, Maine’s, BU’s, Cornell’s, Ohio State’s, Michigan State’s, etc?
Pairwise does not use margin of victory or loss for the simple reason that if a team is behind by one goal half way thru the third, the team behind has to open up the style of play to score. That sometimes results in tying it up. More often falling further behind. Which results in further wide open play often with the same result. Sometimes not though. It is very entertaining and we do not want that to stop. And what we DON'T want is for coaches to play for losses but by the smallest margin to limit the damage to their metric.
I read that the next iteration was going to incorporate relative offensive totals, making it KRATCH ROT.
There is also a reason that professional leagues only use W-L-T. In theory they are all on an equal playing field. In college athletics that is not the case. The level of competition in B1G, NCHC, Hockey East, ECAC, Atlantic Hockey are not equal. Just like College football, SEC and B1G are a step above everyone else.
Bullseye. Of course, one could make the same argument about metrics for college football and hoops. That there is no purpose in measuring how much you win or lose by as winning or losing are the only results that matter. Ranking teams based on margin of victory is much different than weighting results for strength of schedule, which in comparing teams from different college conferences who don't play similar schedules you have to do if you want fair results.