>It would punishish the ECAC's outstanding parity to only have one
>team make the tourny. If Princeton wins everything or the winner of
>Colgate/RPI tonight should be given a NCAA bid. Interconference
>records show that the ECAC and HE should be given the same number of
>bid's ....two.
It seems to me that this comment comes out of an incorrect assumption,
that being that somehow the committee decides that each conference
should receive a certain number of bids and then finds teams to fill
those slots. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. Other than selecting at least two
teams from each conference, there are no constraints placed upon the
committee as far as deciding how many teams will go from each
conference.
I'm not attempting to pick on Pat, but...this is a perfect example of
the kind of incorrect assumptions I have seen made the last few weeks
and that we will see after the selections are announced. Others
include (again, these are not true):
* playoff games count for more than regular season games
* conference finish (other than first) determines selection/seeding
* conference tourney finish ... (ditto)
And there are many, many more. Each year it seems that several of us
spend a lot of time correcting the same wrong assumptions and correcting
the same pieces of misinformation. I would ask that people review the
criteria that have been posted here for all to see several times. It
would help a great deal in understanding what will happen and next
week, what has happened.
Other than that, your best bet is to not make blind assumptions.
Sometimes we seem to have solid evidence that the process has been
somehow altered, as with the comments made in the conference call
earlier this week about a bye for teams winning both reg season &
tourneys. But too many other times, people will make up their own
reasons why teams should be chosen or not be chosen, and these get
passed off as fact. This confuses everyone and makes it more
difficult to understand what REALLY happened.
I know there are always people new to HOCKEY-L each year who haven't
seen the old discussions each March. My suggestion is, if you aren't
familiar with the process and have some questions, ask them of someone
who seems to know what's going on - some of us here have been
following it closely for many years now and have a pretty good handle
on what happens. Read the discussions to pick up on how things work,
and maybe even go back through discussions from past March archives.
If something really doesn't make sense, ask - but try to make clear
that it is a question, and try not to present what is actually
irrelevant evidence for why you disagree with the selections - i.e.,
"TeamA should not have been chosen ahead of TeamB because TeamB
finished second in the conf tourney and TeamA got knocked out in the
first round." That fact is true, but it doesn't have anything to do
with selection.
I think the best criticisms of committee decisions in the past have
dealt with either a perceived incorrect application of the criteria,
or an argument that the criteria as used (i.e. RPI) are not accurate
representations of the quality of the teams chosen or left out. The
key here is that a good criticism of a committee decision *requires* a
solid understanding of how the process works.
An example of the worst criticisms is given at the end of the second
last paragraph. But this is the form that most of the criticisms
take on HOCKEY-L, which is why I bothered to write all of this. I
hope to head it off before it gets worse.
Back to the question of conferences, the process involves selecting 12
teams. The committee does not sit down and decide that they believe one
conference is stronger than another, so it deserves more bids than the
other. It hands out the bids...and if one conference gets 4 and
another gets 2, so be it. Really, it is as simple as that.
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
|
