From Mike Machnik's post:
 
>Conf   AvgRPI   AvgRPIRank
>HE      .5341      13.38
>WCHA    .5137      18.3
>CCHA    .4979      23
>ECAC    .4764      27.5
 
>We have a subjective argument here.  Was the WCHA a conference of many
>good teams who beat up on each other, or of many mediocre teams who
>went round and round knocking each other off?  Here's something that
>does not answer this question, but it may explain the difference
>between the WCHA & HE: each conference's total record in games against
>teams from one of the other three conferences.  No Independents, no
>Canadian teams, no nonleague games against teams from the same
>conference, no playoff games.
>
>HE     36-15-2  .698
>WCHA   13-11-0  .542
>CCHA   14-15-1  .483
>ECAC   13-35-3  .284
 
Not trying to down grade any of the leagues here, BUT, what conference was
most of the HE games against...I do not have the ability to go through and
show how each conference did against each other, but it would be nice to
see how each conference did against the other.
 
>HE has also played most of its NC games vs the ECAC and won a majority
>of them.  What seems interesting is that even though the AvgRPI and
>AvgRPIRank for ECAC teams is below that of any other conference, HE
>has benefitted from playing and beating these teams.  Next question
>is whether getting a win is more important than who you get it against.
 
>By the criteria, HE teams have fared very well in tourney selection
>since the end of the HE-WCHA agreement.  Are HE teams really that much
>more deserving, or does HE just know how to play the system?  (or have
>they fallen into a way to play the system...)
 
Excatly what I was thinking.  I do not remember which rating system it
was, but one of them had the WCHA teams each with the 9 toughest schedules
and then Maine at 10 and followed by CC at 11.  I think maybe a mix of
the different types of computer ratings should be used and evaluated
when picking the teams...for CC to have the 11th toughest schedule in one
rating and the 33rd (I think) toughest schedule in the computer rankings
used by the NCAA is very odd.
 
>what a solution would be to the problem.  However, it also points to
>the possibility that maybe, just maybe, like HE last season, the WCHA
>*was* a conference of mediocrity this season with a couple of teams
>that rose above the rest.
 
I do not think that the WCHA could be called a conference of mediocrity
this season.  I personally believed that MTU had the best chance of any
of the teams in the WCHA to upset in the first round.  I was suprised
when they actually did it, but they are a good team.  I do not think that
in any other conference you could expect the last place team to take
2 out of 3 games, (or even have a chance) anytime of the year.
 
Paul Armstrong