I quote Adam Wodon:
 
>>" The other teams are determined by looking at the Teams Under
>>" Consideration, and comparing them to each other using the criteria
>>" outlined above. Schools like Minnesota, Miami, New Hampshire and
>>" Vermont were obvious choices once the committee could easily see those
>>" teams were beating all the rest under consideration.
>>"
>>" The committee then took all the "bubble teams," like Michigan State,
>>" St. Cloud, Denver, RPI, Princeton and Colorado College, and compared
>>" them all to each other.
 
He responds:
 
>I suppose I was paraphrasing -- and having some false memories  .... so
>you are correct.   However, it is splitting hairs a bit, because the
>simple RPI number will give them a better idea of who is more "on the
>bubble" than just a "TUC" distinction.  Perhaps I didn't write it, but
>the implication was that looking at RPI gives them an idea of who is
>close .... which is true.
 
        To me, the implication of "the committee could easily see
those teams were beating all the rest under consideration", coming
right after a statement that pairise comparisons are used to determine
the at large bids, is that the triage is done using PWR, not RPI.
 
        Anyway, I think the thing to do is ask the NCAA for
clarification on this point.
 
>>        It sounds to me that they identify the "lock" teams, and hence
>>the "bubble" ones by using the PWR--or more precisely the comparisons
>>among teams not receiving automatic bids--and *not* by the RPI.
 
>That's only done after identifying bubble teams.   They don't compare
>teams until determining who to compare ..... what comes first, the
>chicken or the egg?
 
        Well, it's perfectly reasonable to compare all the possible
at-large teams, and use the results of those comparisons to pick out
the bubble and compare the individual teams.
 
        One of the reasons using the comparisons to identify the
bubble makes more sense to me is that you can usually tell at a glance
how big the bubble needs to be.  (Including the case where you have N
at-large bids to give out and N teams win the comparisons with all the
rest, when you don't need a bubble at all.)  If you're using an RPI
cutoff, how many teams on either side should you include in the
comparison?
 
On the issue of whether total PWR or individual comparisons are more
appropriate for selecting the tournament field:
 
>I disagree with your disagreement, and I can't respond to every point --
>suffice to say, I disagree.
 
        I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other
that one method is better.  I just wanted to challenge the statement
that using the total PWR is *obviously* preferable, and that the
committee couldn't help but do it that way if they really thought
about it.  If you'll recognize my point about the pairwise comparison
already factoring in performance against other teams, even if you
don't agree with it, I'm satisfied.
 
        As to whether the distinction between PWR and individual
comparisons would ever matter when choosing the field, I direct your
attention to
<http://www.slack.net/~whelan/cgi-bin/tbrw.cgi?pairwise.980302.html>.
A week ago Miami was tied with CC for eleventh in the PWR, two
comparisons and two places above St. Cloud.  St. Cloud had beaten
teams above them and lost to #18 Lake State and #20 Rensselaer.  Since
any reasonable definition of "the bubble" stopped above 18th place,
SCSU would have make the NCAAs based on those comparisons instead of
Miami.  (My take on the bubble looked like
 
  Team         lPWR RPI Comps Won
1 Wisconsin      3 .538   SCCC__NE
2 St Cloud       2 .556 __  CCMm__
3 CO College     2 .544 ____  MmNE
 
4 Miami          2 .541 Wi____  NE
5 Northeastern   1 .530 __SC____
 
.)  So right there is an example where the distinction would have made a
world of difference.
 
        One final thought: I know the chair doesn't dictate this sort
of policy to the selection committee, but does anyone else find it an
amusing coincidence that we have this deliciously complex selection
procedure when a representative of the ECAC is in charge?  From the
people who brought you the unresolvable tiebreaker loop...
 
        (Okay, that's not fair, since the ECAC web site actually
addressed and resolved the unresolvable loop.)
 
                                         John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                     Official Scorer/PA Announcer
                                        U of Utah Ice Hockey Club
                                               <[log in to unmask]>
                      <http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jtw16960/joe.html>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.