At 7:29 PM 3/19/96, Jeff B wrote:
>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.
 
No, this is not true at all.  My whole point is that season long
performance is what should be used to determine the 12 best teams and where
they are seeded.  I've never said anything about using HEAL, CHODR, etc.,
and I have criticized the use of RPI in the past too.
 
I am not even convinced that the pairwise comparison method is best, but I
do think it is a decent indicator of season long performance.
 
>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.
 
Well, the automatic bids are not handed out to tourney winners in an
attempt to get the 12 best teams into the NCAA tournament.  They are given
to tourney winners to enhance the conference tournaments.
 
Could you honestly say that if Harvard had beaten Cornell to win the ECAC
and gain its auto bid, then Harvard would have deserved a bid more than all
of the teams except for Minnesota, Michigan, and Providence?
 
>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.
 
For the record: I never said that Cornell's win was "not much of a
championship", nor did I say anything remotely approaching this.  Nor do I
believe it.
 
I also put Cornell's win in the same category as Providence's.  A team
pulled off a tournament championship win - a GREAT one - yet it was as
close as it could be, and if the game had gone the other way - quite
possible in both games - then they would not have gotten a bid.
 
This is why I pointed out Cornell's situation.  It was in response to the
idea that Cornell had earned an East seed more than Lowell had.  Please try
to understand this.
 
Unfortunately, my point has become obscured by the furor that has arisen
over my mentioning of this simple fact.  So let me withdraw it in the
interest of taking the discussion to a higher level.  For purposes of this
discussion, I'll happily submit that all of the 12 teams that got bids
deserved to be in the tournament.  Including Cornell.
 
Now...
 
When the teams are ranked within their regions based on season long
performance, Lowell comes out 3rd in the East.  Clarkson is 4th, Cornell
5th, and Providence 6th.
 
1) Does Lowell deserve an East seed more than Cornell?
1a) Does Cornell deserve an East seed more than Providence?
 
And in both cases, why or why not?
 
>But I reserve the
>right to disagree with him on how the bids should be given out!
 
Yes, you do have that right.  And I encourage intelligent disagreement.  I
just want to see good arguments on both sides.
 
>These ratings
>systems serve a purpose, but to declare them more important than conference
>championships is going too far.
 
Let's forget the rating systems.  Is winning a conference tournament
championship more important than season-long performance?
 
>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.
 
I think this example works against your case, because professional sports
almost always uses season record to seed one team ahead of another, and
extend the home advantage to the team ranked higher by season long
performance.
 
Hopefully some people realize where I am coming from.  I actually share the
view expressed by Scott Monaghan, in which he said
 
>Let's have a little perspective here for the folks over-analyzing
>the seedings and placement.  Be happy you got in the tournament and enjoy
>it.
 
I don't even have a team in the tournament, and have not for 9 years, but I
will enjoy it anyway.
 
Still, I ask the questions that I ask because 1) some of the decisions do
not make sense to me (LSSU/Minn vs Lowell/Clarkson; why the emphasis on
avoiding conference matchups) and I'd like them to make sense, and 2) I
want people to think about what they think should happen and put forth good
arguments for their views, as I hope I have.  In the past 7 years, we have
had intelligent discussions here about the selection and seeding decisions,
and we have all learned much from those discussions.
 
To some, I probably seem guilty of over-analyzing this week, but a cursory
glance at the archives will show that that is what always happens at this
time of year, and I believe it is a good thing as long as the discussions
remain intelligent.  I also don't do this out of any kind of anger or
disappointment at whatever may have happened to my team - as I said, they
are not involved.  Rather, my hope is that I, at least, will come to a
better understanding of what should be done.  Hopefully others will too.
 
The questions we have raised are ones that are good to ask, and there is no
doubt that the process today is still much better than it was 8-10 years
ago.
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                   [log in to unmask]            *HMM* 11/13/93
>> Co-owner of the College Hockey Lists at University of Maine System  <<
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.