John Haeussler <[log in to unmask]> writes to me:
>Wow!  I'm amazed that you can see Mike's colors at all
>while looking through those thick Big Red glasses.  Don't
>you hate it when Machnik stirs this kind of trouble up?!  He's
>also part of that "best twelve teams should make the NCAA
>tournament" school of thought.  We don't need that kind of
>dangerous logic here!
 
the problem isn't with the logic, it's with the definition of
"best 12 teams."  Mike uses a calculated ratings statistic based on
certain criteria, either the RPI or the HEAL or the CHODR or...
whatever acronym makes the most sense to him.  IM(NS)HO, the conference
champions deserve automatic bids more than anyone.  The NC$$ (at least this
year) agrees with that, although I'm not sure that makes me feel any better.
 
Then Greg Berge <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>If Cornell "squeaked" in, then I suggest that any team which did not
>get an automatic bid by winning their regular season or tournament
>"backed" in.
>The object of the sport is to win the championship.
>Cornell did.  That more than offsets *any* difference in an
>abstract measure like a power rating, whose constituent factors and
>their relative weights are ultimately arbitrary.
>The elevation of a statistical measure over a concrete result is
>ludicrous, and reflects a greater respect for the creators of
>ratings indices than for the players who got the job done.
>Congratulations to all the teams who earned their way into the
>tournament by winning their regular season title or their
>tournament title.
 
Thank you, Greg, for putting that better than I could have.  I'm surprised
so many people seem to think that the ratings systems are more important.
I like having automatic bids for the regular-season champ and tournament
champ, with four at-large bids to reward great teams which were close to
either of these titles but didn't quite make it.
 
What really surprised me was to have Mike and others point out that
Cornell won a 1-goal game to secure the bid, so they were "1 goal from
going home."  Jeez!  I've never heard someone say "well, they won
the championship, but it was only by one goal, so it's not really much of
a championship-- they really almost lost."
That is, before this week.
 
I hasten to add my apologies to Mike for calling him anti-Cornell.  It was
wrong of me to do so, and I deserve the flaming I got.  I now understand
that he was just unhappy with the way the bids go out.  But I reserve the
right to disagree with him on how the bids should be given out!  These ratings
systems serve a purpose, but to declare them more important than conference
championships is going too far.  It's as if in baseball the two top-ranked
teams played in the World Series, even if they were both from the AL.  Just
tell the NL champ, sorry, you don't rate above the #2 AL team in the RPI.
 
John adds,
>Btw...is Cornell the only team in the tournament to have their
>own brand of chewing gum?
Hmmm, do I hear a marketing opportunity?  Gopher Gum?  Terrier Gum?
Laker Gum?
Please, folks, we Cornell fans are just trying to enjoy our victory for
the week before LSSU chews us up and spits us out like the gum we are.
So all you people whose teams "backed in" to the NC$$, just wait till next
week and we'll all be quiet again.
 
-Jeff.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.