Edward N. Moller wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 12:29:51 -0600 Joseph M LaCour wrote:
>
> > My Daddy told me a long time ago that never believe everythng you read in
> > the Globe, but this seems to fly in the face of everything that we've
> > read here over the past two years where #2 (PWR) was the first factor and
> > #1 (the RPI) was used to break ties.
>
> The article also stated that BU has sewn up fifth place and will play
> Providence next week.  We all know that is not accurate.
 
I think you guys are being a little too harsh on Bob Monaghan here.
First of all, if you look closely at the criteria he lists, #2 is *not*
what we call PWR.  If you add #1 (RPI) to #2 (common opponents, teams
under consideration, last 16, head-to-head), then you get PWR.  So he's
actually just about right.  Listing the RPI as #1 is ok in my book,
since (1) PWR usually follows the RPI very closely, and (2) RPI is the
tie breaker if the comparisions end in a tie.  He may have slightly
misunderstood what Joe Marsh told him, but it ended up just about
correct.
 
Second, the original Hockey East press release for this week incorrectly
stated that BU was guaranteed fifth place, so the error was not the
Globe's.  (Supposedly, HE faxed out a correction, so the only error
might have been not noticing the correction.)
 
Chris
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.