>        Okay, you've said this before, that they identify the bubble
>by looking at the RPI rather than the PWR, but going by your Joe Marsh
>interview from last year
><http://www.uscollegehockey.com/tournament/032097.html>, that doesn't
>appear to be true.  I quote:
>
>" The other teams are determined by looking at the Teams Under
>" Consideration, and comparing them to each other using the criteria
>" outlined above. Schools like Minnesota, Miami, New Hampshire and
>" Vermont were obvious choices once the committee could easily see
those
>" teams were beating all the rest under consideration.
>"
>" The committee then took all the "bubble teams," like Michigan State,
>" St. Cloud, Denver, RPI, Princeton and Colorado College, and compared
>" them all to each other.
 
I suppose I was paraphrasing -- and having some false memories  .... so
you are correct.   However, it is splitting hairs a bit, because the
simple RPI number will give them a better idea of who is more "on the
bubble" than just a "TUC" distinction.  Perhaps I didn't write it, but
the implication was that looking at RPI gives them an idea of who is
close .... which is true.
 
 
>        It sounds to me that they identify the "lock" teams, and hence
>the "bubble" ones by using the PWR--or more precisely the comparisons
>among teams not receiving automatic bids--and *not* by the RPI.
 
That's only done after identifying bubble teams.   They don't compare
teams until determining who to compare ..... what comes first, the
chicken or the egg?
 
 
>>It's not often that it will make a difference, but it could ...  And I
>>think if the committee was explained PWR -- they would see how on the
>>money it is, and that it's logically better.
>
>>Cause, heck, they don't give the regular season ECAC title to Team B -
>>just because it was 2-0 vs. Team A --- when Team A had more points
>>overall --- right?
>
>        I beg to differ.  Equating pairwise comparisons to individual
>games is a bit off since they factor in a lot of criteria such as
>record vs common opponents and record vs Teams Under Consideration.
>In that way, it's more like the ECAC tiebreaker system.  If two teams
>are tied for a position in the ECAC standings (their won-lost-tied
records
>playing a balanced schedule are identical), do you apply the ECAC
>tiebreakers between each team and each other team in the standings,
>total up the number of tiebreaker wins, and compare those totals?  No,
>you consider only the tiebreaker between the two teams in question.
 
I disagree with your disagreement, and I can't respond to every point --
suffice to say, I disagree.
 
 
>        Now, since two teams vying for an NCAA tournament spot haven't
>played the same schedule, you can't just compare their records
>(although if you wanted to stretch the analogy, you could think of
>"PWR with errorbars" as corresponding to ECAC record).
 
Well, exactly ... the fact that they haven't played the same schedule is
theoretically worked out by using all the criteria that makes up PWR.
 
I believe the analogy to place in the ECAC standings, does work.
 
 
 >        If Northeastern and St. Cloud are competing for the last
>playoff spot, why should anyone care how they stack up against
>Michigan State or Princeton?  The Northeastern-SCSU PWC already
>*compares* the two teams based on a host of factors, most of them
>relating to how the teams did against *other* teams.
 
Why shouldn't they care how they do against other teams ...
 
Look, we know we are getting down to quantum mechanics here - we're down
to such a small level.
 
Teams vying for 12 and 13 are never going to have a comparison win
against the top 5 teams in PWR -- heck probably not even the top 8 or 9
... so in that sense, it's unlike a regular season standings.
 
But if team 12 in PWR -- defeated team 10, 14, 15, lost to 16 and beat
everyone else
And team 13 defeated 12, 14, lost to 15 and 16, etc...
 
12 has more PWR wins -- but 13 won the head-to-head comparison ...
 
Why are the comparison wins for 12 vs. 10 and 14 less valid, just
because it so happens they are tightly tied with team 13 -- and 13 wins
the bid.
 
Now this could be a bad example .... because under the above scenario,
the committee would probably compare everyone from 10-15 against
everyone else, and come up with more total wins for 12 against just
those other teams.
 
So it would never matter.
 
and this is what I mean when I say that what the committee is doing
BECOMES essentially the same exact thing as a direct application of PWR.
 
So -- let's not even beat ourselves over the head about it.
 
 
>        Using individual comparisons to seed the tournament is utterly
>straightforward once the field is chosen, when the number of teams
>involved is, at absolute most, eight;
 
When it comes to seeding is where it becomes more of an issue .... and
perhaps the committee is better off doing head to head comparison
instead of totals.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.