>It seemed to me that the committee ranked postseason play a little
>higher than perhaps they should have. I mean, CC loses in the first
 
Not once during the entire conference call was post-season play even
mentioned. It was not a criteria. "Last 20 games" was, however. What
hurt CC was losing to Tech and not being able to take on Minnesota or
Wisconsin or St. Cloud. As CC sat at home this week, their rating
sank, in essence, because they were not on the ice to improve it. For
the record, the 5 criteria were: RPI, head-to-head, common opponents,
record vs teams under consideration, and record in last 20 games.
 
>The star of the committee has to be the Bowling Green Athletic Director.
>For him to convince the committee that both Western Mich AND Michigan
>St deserved to go over BOTH St Cloud and Colorado College... he deserves
>a pat on the back from the WMU and MSU camps. Certainly BU's Jack Parker
>deserves laudits from Northeastern-land as well; I was sure they'd take
>7 teams from the west instead of the 6-6 split.
 
Hah, very funny. Maybe in the old days of team selection, but not any
more.  The star of the show was the computer. As Comley said, "the
computer just spits it out" and the commitee reports the results. Why,
you may ask, is there no longer the "leg rubbing" and politics when
deciding the bids?  Because the coaches complained and forced them into
using this algorithmic method. So, Colorado gets left out. Now the
coaches will probably cry and want some politics back into the
selection process.
 
Keith