I'm sorry, TN, but I just have to respond to this statement:
 
        <snip>
> 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.
>
        <snip>
 
        That's just plain silly.  By that logic, any rating system that did
not have the UW-Squeakball team ranked in the top 4 in the country is
flawed.  Would you take the empirical end result of the tournament and force
system parameters to place the teams in order of finish?   Suppose Niagara
ran the table and won the whole thing.  Then any reliable system must rank
them as number 1 before the tourney?
 
        Its important to remember that no one has trashed Niagara on the
list - they are getting their due respect.  The argument revolves around the
point that several other teams who logically could have done as well were
not invited and that the system which invited Niagara has flaws even though
everyone agrees that Niagara should have been invited.
 
        I would like to personally add to this, that until you have a
tourney that invites all teams over .500 plus all teams over .500 in their
last 10 or 12 games, there will always be some bubble team that people will
argue about who, theoretically, really "deserved to be invited" but weren't.
I would also argue there will never be a consensus perfect system for
picking teams.  That's just sports and the real world.
 
> Tom Rowe                                          [log in to unmask]
> ====================================
> Home of Division 3 National Champion Pointers
> 89, 90, 91 & 93 and National Runners Up 92 & 98
> ====================================
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.