(Most of this info comes from the media conference call. All of the
Comley quotes do. Rick did a great job explaining it all!)
 
>* Rick Comley, as Keith relayed, said that the seedings were done
>largely by the computer.  Note that the top 12 teams in RPICH (or RPI)
>all got in.  CC was 13th, SCSU 14th.  The difference between CC at
>13th and MSU at 12th was .0019 (by RPICH).
 
Yes, the top 12 in the RPI got in, but anyone within 1 point on the
commitee's version of the RPI (not exactly the same as Erik's RPICH,
but pretty darn close) was evaluated based on the other criteria. So,
that means Colorado was compared with Michigan State, as one example.
MSU wins 3-1, getting a point for RPI, last 20 and common opponents,
with CC's point for teams under consideration (no head-to-head games).
 
So, it may appear that the committee just took the top 12 teams in the
RPI and went home.  But actually, they looked at a lot of other
things.  By coincidence, the top 12 in the RPI also won those criteria
comparisons.
 
>* Schedule strength killed CC.  Look how they compared with the two
>WCHA teams that got in (OWP from Erik's RPICH):
 
A quote from Comley: "Minnesota had the 8th toughest schedule and
Colorado College had the 33rd."
 
>I would be curious to see how the old way of calculating the RPI might
>have affected the ratings.
 
According to Comley, CC does better under the current scheme than under
the old one.
 
>* The tv selection show was, as expected, mostly fluff.
 
Yes, it was. But the media question-and-answer session afterwards on
the telephone was VERY informative.
 
>An interesting point that Rick Comley brought up was the head-to-head
>record between teams.  I believe Rick said that the coaches wanted
>each win counted as a point in a team's favor - i.e., UNH beat Lowell
>head to head 3-2-0, so instead of UNH getting one point in their
>favor, they'd get 3 and Lowell 2 (and for Minn-Wisc, Minn would get 4
>and Wisc 0).  But I couldn't tell if he was saying that it was done
>this way or that this was what was desired.
 
No, he said the *difference* in wins was each worth a point. His example
was Minnesota and Wisconsin. UM went 4-0 against UW, so the Gophers
got 4 points right there. Since there are only 4 other criteria, the best
UW could have done was to tie UM on the criteria. Any doubt why Minnesota
was seeded higher than Wisconsin?
 
>I agree with all of these except UNH ahead of UML.  Looking at the 5
>factors:
>What was the deciding factor?
 
I am guessing that the commitee had different teams under
consideration.  With the top 18 RPI teams under consideration (for
example), UNH *barely* beats out UML on TUC, with the other criteria
even. I am sure it was a very close call. Too bad that because the east
regionals are in Albany, RPI got automatic home ice, and that made the
UML/UNH loser have to go west. If the east regionals were in the Boston
area this year, UML would not have to go to Munn.
 
>Looking at this another way, why was Lowell seeded ahead of LSSU when
>the crossovers were done?  If Lowell and LSSU are swapped, then MSU
>hosts LSSU and Lowell plays Northeastern - on a neutral surface.  Here
>is the Lowell-LSSU comparison:
 
Comley said an effort was made to prevent conference teams from playing
in the first round. I suspect this is the reason UML was seeded ahead
of LSSU. (The committee also looked at second round match-ups, but with
3 CCHAs team in the west, there is no avoiding a possible all-CCHA
game.)
 
The only pairings I question are the first round east games. Why do UW
and WMU have to go all of the way to Albany to play? Couldn't they meet
in Chicago or something. (^; Seriously, if you swap WMU and RPI as the
5th and 6th seeds, then you don't have all-east and all-west match-ups,
plus RPI isn't in Harvard's bracket. (RPI and Wisconsin in the first
game in Albany. Wow--can you say the battle of the fans in red?) The
committee fiddled with other seeds; I don't see why they didn't fiddle
one more time.
 
Keith