Adam's words seem emphatic enough to me, so I guess I'll believe him.
Besides, if he's lying to us, we can always lynch him the next time he
comes to Potsdam.   ;-)
 
We can remind ourselves 27 times that the committee goes by the PWR
and then crunch the numbers just as often. However, NCAA committees
(no matter the sport) have always gone by a selection process that few of
us comprehend. So, it looks very abstract to the common fan.
 
Seeing this, one may get the impression that they select teams for the
tournament that "had a tough schedule" or "had a better conference
tournament" or not select teams because they lost in the QF round of
their conference tourney. So, we all get nervous come the 2nd or 3rd
Sunday in March wondering if our team will be "one of the living".
 
I, for one, am glad to know how the tournament field is selected. This
way, I can determine on my own who may come to Albany this year
or if my team will make it and where they may be placed. Sure, it takes
the suspense out of it, but at least it's more clear cut to the public than
it has been in years past.
 
This may be the reason why the UVM players & coaches were not sure if
they'd be in the NCAAs after Princeton beat them in the ECACs last year.
Vermont was favored to beat Princeton, so by their own accounts, maybe
they felt they didn't belong. They didn't have the definitive word that they
were in the tournament, so they weren't sure, anyway.
 
My 2 cents....
 
-Andy
 
At 02:05 AM 3/9/98 -0600, Adam Wodon wrote:
>Greg,
>
>It's been repeated over and over again.  How many more times does it
>have to be said? I didn't have to be a wise-ass about it, for sure, but
>I don't understand the reluctance of people to believe a simple fact:
>The committee goes strictly by the numbers.  Mathematics says Clarkson
>can't drop far enough to be eliminated unless there's four conference
>tourney upsets.
>
>Last year, Vermont's own players, coaches and media didn't believe they
>were LITERALLY guaranteed a bid despite losing the quarterfinal series,
>so I know it ain't easy.
>
>Getting people to understand is frustrating, but it was spelled out last
>year, has been repeated over and over, and the original story is still
>somewhere on USCHO.
>
>Until people accept the fact that the committee doesn't use black magic,
>you'll always have people complaining about this or that.  Just like the
>fact that the pollsters aren't as crazy as it appears to the fan of the
>one team who thinks his favorites got screwed.
>
>AW
>
>HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
>[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
>
>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.