There's a line between statements being so unfounded they must be
challenged and so ludicrous there's no point in trying to reason with
the person making them.  This discussion is rapidly approaching that
transition, if it hasn't crossed it already.
 
But once more, in response to T.N.Long:
 
> If you deny that Niagara is not in the top 12 in the country. then you
> disagree with Niagara being picked.  I know a lot of people really don't
> want to be confused with the facts, but Niagara did prove themselves to be
> CLEARLY in the top 8 in the country.
 
> For those who are developing ranking systems that did not rank Niagara in
> the top eight prior to the tournament, note that you now have empirical
> data that indicates that your system still needs adjustment.
 
So by extension this means that since BC beat Wisconsin, they were
CLEARLY in the top four in the nation and Wisconsnin was not.  That
means every system for seeding the tourmanent which ranks BC below
Wisconsin needs adjustement?
 
It sounds to me like you think the most significant factor, if not the
only one, in seeding a given year's tournament is the results of that
tournament itself.  Without being psychic, I'm not sure how the
selection committee can use that information.
 
I would also repeat that the result of one game can hardly be viewed
as more significant to the question of whether a team deserved to be
given a tournament bid than the entire season that preceded it, but
it's clear by now that you simply ignore such arguments.
 
>> to be, regardless of how they did in the tourney or where they are
>> ranked or how many quality players they have etc etc ... is the
>> numerical method used to pick the teams flawed... and the answer is yes.
>> Is it flawed enough that Niagara should actually not have been picked? i
>> dont think anyone is saying that.... however the clearcut case of
>> Quinnipiac points to the current method flaws ... point is it is going
>> to be a while before the leagues are more or less balanced and the
>> current method once again works well.... I think John Whelan and others
>> have better methods to use ... and I believe that Niagara ranks well in
 
> I totally disagree.  Teams like Q need be brought to the selection
> committee's attention.  Then, the incestuous nature of conferences can be
> considered.  But if you skew the numbers to reflect preconceived notions,
> then a truly deserving team may not be brought to the selection committee's
> attention.  I think it's much better for the committee to look at a team
> like Q and say "you don't make the cut" than to never look at the team at
> all.
 
Okay, here is a point of fact on which you may be misinformed.
Neither the modified system I'm advocating, nor the KRACH ratings it's
built upon has any preconceived notions incorporated in it at all.
Give it the list of teams and the results of games between them, and
it gives you a ranking; it doesn't know a priori the difference
between Maine and Fairfield until that difference comes out in the
results.  And the ratings it produces show the MAAC teams at the
bottom of the pile (with one or two others like MTU and UAF and the
service academies mixed in) not because it knows they're in the MAAC
but because with the exception of Canisius's upset of Niagara, no MAAC
team beat any non-MAAC team aside from Air Force and Army.
 
I think that the current system is much more susceptible to
preconceptions, conscious or not, since the committee had to look at
Quinnipiac (and Niagara, when it came to seeding) and decide to go
against their own selection criteria to exclude them from the
tournament.
 
                                          John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                                 [log in to unmask]
                                     http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.