Eric Hoffman writes:
>  I just don't get it.  Clarkson, is ahead of Yale in all the polls and
>got the nod from several of the *seeders* for a seed in the tournament yet
>Yale is in second place in the ECAC.  Don't conference standings count for
>anything?
 
Well, first Yale isn't in 2nd anymore - RPI pulled ahead of them by a point
on Saturday.  But to answer your question, no, the conference standings do
not play a part in determining which teams go to the NC$$s or who gets
seeded where.  Overall record is what counts here, not conference record.
Conference standing counts for the conference tourney.  Look at it this
way: the conference tourneys and the NC$$ tourney are two completely
separate entities, and the only effects the conference tourneys have on the
NC$$ seedings are 1) conference tourney winners get an automatic bid to the
NC$$s, and 2) games played in the conference tourneys count towards the
teams' overall record and thus can be a part of certain factors that have a
bearing upon seeding, like strength of schedule, head-to-head record,
record vs common opponents, etc.
 
>This brings me
>to my main question:  Will preseason hype of Clarkson outweigh the conference
>standings and get them a bid (of course if they don't win the ECAC's outright)?
 
No, I don't think so.  It didn't help BU back in 1987 or so when they were
a preseason #1 and did not live up to expectations (finished just over
.500).  I agree with the suggestion posted by Glenn from Clarkson that the
projections posted are just that; the writers polled seem to think Clarkson
will continue its upward swing and finish well enough to deserve a bid.
Also, note that Clarkson has an RPICH of .5098 (15th) according to Erik
while Yale's is .4951 (24th).  (RPI is 9th, .5299.)
 
What I found most interesting among the projections, as Erik commented on,
was that Bob Croce had RPI 5W ahead of 6W Minnesota.  All four writers had
7 West teams and 5 East teams, but only Croce had an East team seeded in
the West ahead of another West team.  This seems to go along with the idea
that the seeds will be swapped (and the committee has always had the right
to do this, they just haven't done it before) to help increase attendance.
 
I also believe the unanimous (among the four) projections of Harvard 2E
ahead of BU are wrong.  BU's RPICH is .5829 (2nd) to Harvard's .5574 (4th),
and BU has wins over Miami, Wisconsin, Maine, and Harvard.  If things stay
this way, I believe BU has done well enough to earn the 2nd seed in the
East, but then again the political considerations may cause the committee
to seed Harvard ahead of BU (especially if Harvard wins the ECAC tourney).
 
And, don't rule out the possibility that Parker might not fight hard for a
2nd seed!  He might prefer to play the first night and not be the team
resting on the 2nd night.  Of course, any discussion involving BU doesn't
happen with Parker in the room, but the other members undoubtedly would
have a feel for his opinion on this subject.
 
(Note: All RPICH quotes are from Erik's posting this week and aren't the
*actual* numbers, although Erik uses the method that is supposed to be
employed by the committee - 20%/40%/40% - in doing RPICH.)
---
Mike Machnik    [log in to unmask]   Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors
(Any opinions expressed above are strictly those of the poster.)    *HMN*