Brian writes:
> Mike writes:
> >I think strength of schedule strength should be a factor.
>
> Perhaps. But if that's the case, then a team with a relatively
> not-so-strong schedule can never hope to achieve a high ranking,
> if you go by that.
Nobody else tells Clarkson to schedule the teams they play.
In fairness to them, however, they have upgraded their nonleague schedule
a bit in recent years. But when a team that has only eight nonleague games
to play, knowing it needs to play good teams to build up its national
ranking because of its weak league schedule, schedules Concordia and a
Czechoslovakian team (since cancelled) for 2 of those 8 games while there
are still teams with nonleague games to play...
> Also, a team like Clarkson is in a catch22. We
> (seem to) agree that HE and the midwest leagues are stronger than the
> ECAC. If Clarkson beats an ECAC team, the stock of that team goes down
> as well as CU's schedule strength. If CU loses, the reverse happens and it
> does the Knights no good. How can Clarkson escape from this vicious
> cycle?
The same thing happens when good teams in other leagues win. And the ECAC
plays fewer league games than the CCHA/WCHA, and about as many as HE. Maybe
if the ECAC removed some of these restrictions I've talked about, and their
teams improved - but now we're back to my original argument.
Think about this. If we assume that half of the ECAC's 12 teams are poor
and half of HE's teams are poor, many people claim that the ECAC suffers
because it has more teams, thus more poor teams. But if this were true,
then a good ECAC team would be forced to play 12 of 22 games against poor
teams. And a good HE team? 4 poor teams x 3 games/team = 12 of 21!
I say, get rid of the ECAC's limits and allow the teams to schedule more
than 26 or 30 games. Although, if you are going to schedule the Concordias
as Clarkson did, it may not make a difference.
Clarkson went along with the ECAC's restrictions; they were offered a way out
and chose not to take it. As long as they do not try to change the way things
are done, there is really nothing they can do.
> Also, how is this "schedule strength" determined? It seems rather
> arbitrary to me. If it's not, please explain to me how it's determined.
It is not arbitrary at all, and it is actually quite simple. The committee
looks at the opponents you played, and also at your opponents' opponents.
It is not exactly like TCHCR, but it *is* like it in the fact that teams are
interrelated by the teams they play, and so on.
> Also, I observe that CCHA and WCHA teams play few if any non-league
> contests because of their heavy slate of league games. How can Clarkson
> prove themselves against the "better" conferences if we don't have an
> opportunity to play them in the reg. season. Last two times we played
> teams from the midwest, our results were pretty good for a team from
> a "weak" conference. If I recall, we swept a pair of games from the
> defending national champion Wisconsin Badgers and we took 2 of 3 on the
> road from the #1 Lake Superior St. Lakers. Not too bad, eh?
Pretty good actually, I'd say, but that and 50 cents gets you a cup of coffee
in 1991-92. Schedule those teams in the regular season and it will help you.
This year it is a little difficult to schedule the good Western teams, but
what happened when we had the 38-game limit?
This is the situation. Clarkson is likely one of the very best teams in the
country. But their schedule does not allow them to prove it until the
national tournament. The selection committee can only look at the games they
*have* played when seeding, it cannot try to guess how they would do if they
played a more difficult schedule. Strength of schedule is based on who you
DID play. Do not scream at the pollsters or the selection committee for
Clarkson's low rankings or seedings. The people who are responsible are
right up there at Clarkson.
- mike
|
