Charlie Shub writes:
>I hate to jump in here, but this is the issue that just won't go
>away....
 
:-) That's ok...I expect it to keep bouncing back forever. :-)
 
>I firmly believe, and I'm not convinced that many people disagree,
>that the rules as applied were flawed.   There's a whole lot of
>evidence including the change in the rules for this year, a widely
>held belief that the rules unduly penalized CC for playing their cross
>town rivals and hitting a hobey candidate goalie in the playoffs.
 
Let's take these one at a time here:
 
1) The change in the rules this season...no such change was made after
1992 when Harvard finished first in the ECAC and, like CC, got upset
in the first round of the league playoffs and did not receive a
tourney bid.
 
I'm not sure what that shows, but I'm inclined to believe that the
rule change was more a political move than anything else.
 
2) The rules unduly penalized CC for playing their cross town rivals
(Air Force)...
 
Charlie, I don't know why you keep bringing this up...I found a
message dated 3/21/94 in which Erik addressed this very issue - and
you were cc'd on the response.  An excerpt:
 
(Erik wrote, in response to a request to generate 2 different RPICH's,
one including the 2 CC-USAFA games and one not including them)
e>
e>Nope, it doesn't make enough of a difference.  CC's rating comes up a little
e>bit, but not enough to overtake MSU.  The teams are tied in the ratings and
e>have no head-to-head record, but MSU has the advantage in record against
e>common opponents and record in the last 20 games.
e>
e>Common Opponents:
e>CC:  8-5-2
e>MSU: 6-2-1
e>
e>Last 20 games:
e>CC:  10-7-3
e>MSU: 12-6-2
e>
e>Here's how the RPICH top 16 would look if CC hadn't played Air Force:
e>
e>                                                 Opp     OppOpp
e>                         G    W  L  T    Win%    Win%    Win%   RPICH
...[deleted]
e>12  Michigan State      39   22-12- 5   .6282   .4963   .5034   .5311
e>13  Colorado College    37   21-11- 5   .6351   .4826   .5194   .5299
...
e>This is how it looks if the CC-USAF games are included (the way I posted it
e>yesterday).
...
e>12  Michigan State      39   22-12- 5   .6282   .4963   .5037   .5311
e>13  Colorado College    39   23-11- 5   .6538   .4721   .5187   .5292
 
When the two games are removed, the difference in CC's rating is
+0.0007.  The difference in the ratings of MSU & CC is also +0.0007.
But the threshold at which the committee begins to look at other
factors is 0.0100.
 
MSU was the 12th seed last season, we know that.  Removing the games
doesn't help CC overtake MSU.  The comparison between the two teams
still goes to MSU.
 
I think it is time we put this question to rest.  It made such an
incredibly small bit of a difference that CC played Air Force, that it
isn't even worth considering.  But this is apparently a myth that still
exists.  It seems to make sense...until you look at the facts.
 
3) Hitting a hobey candidate goalie in the playoffs (Jamie Ram of
MTU)...this is the same Jamie Ram whose MTU team finished last in
the WCHA with a record of 8-19-5...who CC could not beat in 2 of 3
games at their own rink in the three biggest games of the year.
Realistically and objectively, that is the way it shook out.
 
Many of us here knew full well that CC was in BIG trouble after they'd
lost the series to MTU.  I have to believe CC's brass realized the
position they were in before the series began.  They were on the fence
as it was going into the postseason.  In a situation like that, your
job is to do what you have to in order to win.  CC was unable to do
that, against the worst team in the league, and with all 3 games at
home.  Their destiny was in their hands, since likely all it would
have taken would have been winning the series with MTU to get a bid.
 
I wonder what the argument would have been, if first and second place
had been reversed in the WCHA last year - if Minnesota had beaten out
CC for first by one point instead, and then CC still did not receive a
bid.  Would there have been any argument at all, or any justification
for an argument?  There have been second place teams that did not get
in and there was not nearly as much wailing or gnashing of teeth.
Again, it seems to make sense to most people that it's wrong for the
regular season champion not to get a bid...until you look at the facts.
 
Of course, I am also one who believes that there should be NO
automatic bids.  I understand the reason for postseason automatic
bids, however, and I believe the good outweighs the bad in that
department.  I still don't like the idea of the regular season champ
getting in automatically.  Then, why don't we just take the top 3
teams from each conference, and no one can complain?  Maybe we are
headed in that direction...
 
>So lets understand that when people say CC was screwed, they mean
>that the selection procedures appear to have been flawed.  Moreover,
>perhaps some feel the selection committee SHOULd HAVE done something
>about that at the time.
 
Well, the committee did make decisions like this in the past...and in
the process, they got most of the coaches, fans, teams, and media
angry at them.  So they decided to eliminate politics last season and
go with the prescribed system - but they still get ripped for not
"doing something"...it is a thankless job...you simply cannot win no
matter what you do.  I don't know why anyone would want to be on the
committee.
 
>Mike and I disagree on this one a bit.  Last year, CC was coming off a
>cellar dwelling season, and almost everything had been set before
>Coach Lucia Came on board.  The scheduling of Air Force has been a
>long standing tradition, and will continue (i hope) for many years to
>come.  Giving up the CC Air Force series would be to colorado springs
>tantamount to giving up the beanpot to bostonians.
 
Charlie, this sentimental argument doesn't work...it almost sounds as
if you're trying to turn it around on the committee and claim, "But
you're trying to make us end the CC-USAFA series!" which isn't true at
all.  But it makes it sound as if it's the committee's fault that CC
didn' get in.  It isn't...it is CC's fault.  CC could have canceled
the USAFA series last year and they still would not have gotten a bid.
CC did not get in because they did not win the games they had to win.
 
I certainly feel for the CC players and supporters...it seems that
many of them didn't understand the situation they were in and believed
right up until the time the seedings were announced, that they were in.
I believe I even remember hearing that they were told by someone that
they "were in".  I know it had to have been a bad experience and
devastating for many of them, and that shouldn't have to happen.
 
But a big reason why it DID happen is the secrecy involved in the
whole process.  I believe teams should KNOW where they stand and what
they have to do to get a bid.  Heck, if you're in the ECAC in 11th
place with 8 points and the 10th place team has 10, you know you have
to win and they have to lose for you to get in (besides the effects of
any tiebreakers).  That is how it should be for the NC$$ tourney, too.
 
And this is the real value of the CC situation last season.  At least
partly because of it, I believe, the committee was much more forthcoming
in explaining the process and how they arrived at the seeds.  They had
never done this before.  It was always very vague such that some of us
here had spent literally years trying to decipher the cryptic comments
they'd make during the conference calls and figure out just WHAT
really counted.  Now we know.
 
>The second part is the inclusion of ALL 10 teams in the WCHA playoffs.
>That wasn't a CC decision.
 
And what was CC's vote on the question of including all 10 teams?
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                                            [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93