I believe Niagara earned their slot in the tournament as I clearly stated.
The other teams in competition with them for that last slot did not show
they'd be a better or more convincing choice.  But a win over New Hampshire
does not prove Niagara is CLEARLY in the top 8 in the country.  They beat
ONE of the twelve teams selected by the NCAA for the tournament.  They
didn't defeat any of the other ten.  They may well be in the top eight.  I
can't say for a fact that they aren't.  I expect they believe they are and I
think they've earned the right to believe that, but it is no more clear to
everyone than the water in the Yukon River.
 
As for Quinnipiac the other numbers and rating systems--mine included--are
not skewed for any preconceived notion.  The CCHP system is clearly defined,
treats everyone the same, and existed before Niagara or Quinnipiac were even
an issue.  The problem is Quinnipiac just cannot demonstrably show, unlike
Niagara, by any of those systems or their own performance that they were
even close to earning a bid to the NCAA tournament this year.  The NCAA
knows their rating system fails for them.  They have to or they wouldn't
have to discard it for Quinnipiac.  And the NCAA can can see, if they care
to look, that other ratings systems don't rate them as highly as Niagara.
Yes, Quinnipiac did extremely well in their conference, but they lost all
four games they played against anyone else.  And I don't think any of the
MAAC teams ever beat any of the teams from the four major conferences.  It's
a problem that the NCAA's ratings systems can't reflect that when others can
without any tweaking or skewing of numbers to do it.
 
That wasn't the case with Niagara who did a tremendous job of making sure
they played as good a schedule as possible.  I know from the experience we
had with Alaska Fairbanks that it is very difficult to make a schedule with
games against the major conference teams when you are on the outside looking
in.  You have to be willing to hit the road as Niagara did and play any of
the major teams that are willing to take you on.  You go to Alaska, you play
in four tournaments during the season, you go to Nebraska, you take a single
game against teams that may only have a single game available within their
schedule and on the road if necessary.  Because it was possible for them to
do that within their CHA schedule and they did, they were able to prove what
the MAAC conference so far has not.  The selection committee was not willing
to overlook that for Niagara and justifiably so.
 
My understanding is that Iona will be coming to Fairbanks to play next
January.  I'm looking forward to the matchup and some good hockey.
 
Eric Carlson
 
-----Original Message-----
From: The College Hockey Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
Behalf Of T. N. Long
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 1:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: 2003 Tournament Selection
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.