John Whelan <[log in to unmask]> posted:
>Details of last month's NCAA Division I Ice Hockey Selection Committee
>Meeting are in an article in the latest NCAA News, now available
>online at
>
>http://www.ncaa.org/news/20000814/active/3717n10.html

Thank you for sending this (and the links to the other articles).

One comment:  the following is a quote from this article....

"The committee also discussed the rating-percentage index (RPI),
which is part of the selection criteria. The group looked at different
scenarios from last season and determined that, by and large, the
current system is efficient."

Interesting choice of words.  I find it hard to buy the "efficient"
description of the RPI when the committee had to implement extra
rules this past year to account for the fact that it doesn't sufficiently
consider strength of schedule, especially for "disconnected"
scenarios.  Those of us who have been following HOCKEY-L
(for longer than we'd like to remember in some cases :-) know
that there are far better rating systems that have already been
developed -- by participants on this list!  I know that change
can be difficult to accept, but it's *really* time for the committee
(and the NCAA) to step up to using a statistically sound
methodology -- and "PWR using RPI + exceptions" isn't.

>There is also an article on the awarding of the 2004-2006 Frozen
>Fours, at
>
>http://www.ncaa.org/news/20000814/active/3717n11.html

Thanks.... I forwarded that one to my boss in response to his
every-two-weeks "you mean I *really* can't get tickets for
Albany next year?" question.  :-)

I would be interested in hearing more info about plans for how
the new ticket allocation scheme will work.  For example, if the
number of applications for tickets from the "repeat" pool exceeds
the number of tickets available in it, will those then automatically
get put into the "regular" lottery?  (I'd hope so....)   And the big
question:  is the increase in ticket allotments for the teams (which
I have *no* argument with) coming out of the "existing" NCAA
allotment, or are they taking an additional 400 seats out of the
"remaining" pool (which will then be split 50%-50% beteween
the repeat and general "lotteries")?  If the answer is that these
are coming from the existing allotment, I think it's a good thing;
if they are keeping all of the "VIP" allocations (for such things as
travel packages from their "preferred" travel agent"), then I'll
have to go back to the NC$$ nomenclature!

>and a report on the Women's Ice Hockey Committee meeting, at
>
>http://www.ncaa.org/news/20000814/active/3717n08.html

<sigh>
The women's tournament would be (IMHO) a *great* place to
start from scratch with a BETTER, statistically sound ranking system...
*especially* because they will be dealing with teams of very
different strengths right from the start.  But now it appears that will
never happen, since we all know that once a precedent is set, it's
very difficult to change.
</sigh>

But the good news:  less than two months until it's time to
DROP THE PUCK!!!

Garrett Lanzy, MTU '84 (Go Youse Huskies!)