Got responses to a lot of people's comments here.
Jim Love writes:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 1995, Richard D. Valente wrote:
>> Apparently the NCAA selection committee announced yesterday that any
>> team that wins both its league title and the playoffs will get a bye.
>> Then if Clarkson wins the ECAC tournament, either Maine or B.U. (or
>> C.C. or Michigan) will have to play the first game at the regionals.
>
> Can anyone else confirm this ??
I guess it did get out, after all. :-) In short...Yes. In long,
this was discussed during the noon conference call yesterday (which I
did not listen in on) and just as it sounds, all teams winning both
the regular season and tourney will be guaranteed a bye in the
pairings.
This means that in the East, Clarkson could still obtain a top 2 seed
and one of either Maine or BU would be bumped down and have to play a
Friday game in Worcester.
Dick Tuthill asks:
> I thought the automatic bids went to the regular season winners
>and to the tournament winners with the remainder decided by the RPI
>including the "accuracy of the method" tiebreaking procedure.
The automatic bids go to the tourney winners. The committee has
stated that they will also award an at-large bid to any teams who win
their regular season but not the tourney. This is technically not an
automatic bid, although it is about as good as one.
> Why then are we talking about whether the ECAC will get 2 or 3
>seeds? If, as seems more and more likely every day, Clarkson runs the table
>at Placid, the ECAC will almost surely get only one seed. True folks???
No, there is another unwritten rule (enough of these to fill a book)
that at least two teams must be chosen from each of the four DivI
conferences.
> Second question: is the committee constrained to using the RPI
>in seeding the tournament once the selections have been made? My impression
>is that it is not -- that it can do what it darn pleases.
That's always true. :-) The fact that they have agreed to forgo the
RPI and give a bye to any team that wins the reg season and tourney
indicates that they are not constrained to using the RPI, at least in
that case.
I am inclined to believe that the RPI will be used as expected in the
rest of the cases, although I also admit I have no real reason to
expect that other than what has happened the last couple of years.
Andrew Brecher writes:
>If Clarkson beats Princeton by a smaller margin than they win the final
>game, it'll be tough to discount Princeton as a possible biddee if they
>finish third, especially considering how high Princeton is in the RPICH.
Please remember that margin of victory doesn't play any role in the
decision at all. As well, if Clarkson wins the tourney, then the
second ECAC bid could go to anyone. Including Vermont or Brown.
Jayson Moy writes:
>Another thought related to Northeastern. Does the loss to Lowell put them
>out of the tourney and give the West 7 teams? Or even the ECAC a third team?
Yes. :-) Actually, it is too close to call...and will depend greatly
on this weekend. I believe that Northeastern's best chance is to hope
for all favorites to win their tourneys. They certainly still have a
chance, although they are clearly standing out in the freezing cold
and looking in through the window at the cozy warm fireplace.
The West could get 7 teams...or the ECAC could get 3. But, let's
remember that there is no conscious decision made to award 7 (or 8)
bids to one region, or 2-3-4 to one conference, etc. The teams are
selected based on the process and unwritten rules, and if one region
ends up with 7 teams or one conference gets 2 or 4 teams, so be it.
(I know Jayson knows this, just pointing it out for the benefit of
newcomers or others who were not aware.)
Greg Ambrose writes:
>Is there any chance that the criteria
>will change for next year to allow teams which have played at the highest
>level over the whole year the right to compete for the national championship?
>Isn't that what the regular season is for?
(cynical mode on)
Unfortunately, it has not been that way for a while. First, we had
automatic bids going to tourney winners (meaning that a UMass could
put on a great run at the end and steal a bid despite a poor season),
followed by the two teams per conference rule which allows a team
outside the 12 best in the country to still get in. Then came the
hullabaloo over CC last year which led to the CC rule by which
undeserving regular season conference champions can still get bids.
Keeping the host team at home last year caused a much higher ranked
Lowell team to be sent West while an RPI team that was one of the last
teams selected stayed home - same for Wisconsin which was sent East in
favor of keeping #12 MSU at home. And now a Clarkson team that wins
both its regular season and tourney can be seeded above not only UNH,
but also one of the two very best teams in the East, Maine and BU.
No, the NC$$ tourney has nothing to do with the teams who have played
at the highest level for most of the season. It seems to be about
time that we all stop buying into this notion that that is what the
tourney is for, because it isn't. It's about keeping the peace among
conferences and regions, and maximizing profits. This year we are
going to see at least one deserving team left home, possibly two or
more. But it won't matter, because in general, everyone will still be
happy and that's what counts - along with the fact that the regionals
and finals will continue to draw well and bring oodles of $$$ into the
NC$$'s coffers...money that will be redistributed to those well-known
hockey schools like Florida State, while schools like RPI, LSSU, CC,
Clarkson, etc. will not see a penny of it.
(cynical mode off)
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
|
