Yes, I am back on Hockey-l, and can now post directly. If my other 2
posts read funny, it is cuz they were sent out on Sunday.

>I expect to see some brand new seeding criteria this year. Could be a
>whole new process.

I think I was right. I tried several variations of past seeding
themes (as have many of you), and nothing comes out. I cannot
reverse-engineer the seeding process this year without talking to the
committee.

>For example, instead of dealing with teams in groups ("swap 2 eastern
>teams into the west"), this year I would probably just start at the
>top of the ranking and place each team 1 at a time into a slot that
>is best for them.

Obviously this is not what they did.

>Anyway, I'd say seeding is about 80% guesswork this year (20%
>predictable), where in the past is might have been as high as 50%
>predictable.

I should have said "as high as 80% predictable" in past years. I
thought we were getting pretty good at it, but not any more.

>2. Nobody here seems to care about *the last 2 at-large bids*. PWR is
>based on the 5 criteria, and I am far from convinced these are any
>good. The details get hidden when you just declare 1 team the winner
>of each comparison, but the devil is in the details.

I'd still like to hear some analyses of the selection process, not
just the seeding.

Keith


--
Keith Instone - [log in to unmask] - http://keith.instone.org/