> Mike Machnik and Adam Wodon have pulled apart my paragraph on the
> strength of Michigan State to make it seem as if I mean something else
> than I do.  My whole point was that an MSU victory is hardly
> inconceivable, and would produce exactly the result the the NCAA seems
> willing to contort into a pretzel to avoid.
 
It was unavoidable somewhere, thus the committee maximizes things for the least
possible scenario (and according to the numbers, this is the case).
 
> Also, Adam Wodon mentioned that Minnesota is the only non-bye western
> team not to at least tie Michigan this year.  Beyond questioning the
> relevence, I would also point out that the game went to overtime
 
I believe in my original post, I indeed said it was irrelevant - only that it
was ironic that everyone was complaining, yet Minnesota is the team with the
worst winning percentage vs. Michigan.
 
If that is irrelevant, then so is the fact that it went to overtime.
 
> The point remains this: in search of a Holy Grail (no conference
> match-ups) the NCAA decided to have a quarterfinal that is either a
> conference match-up (oops) or pits the #1 & #4 overall seeds.
> Obviously, when putting together the brackets, they have decided that
> earning a high seed is the LEAST important criterion in putting together
> the final pairings.  This is a philosophical position with which I am
> wholly at odds.  I disagree with Greenie: this does not put together the
> tournament that is best for the fans.
>
> I got caught up in a long debate about the process of seeding which is
> largely irrelevent.  I still stand by the opinion that, no matter how it
> is done, the current system produces terrible results.
 
This is a different argument -- and it can be argued forever.  I just hope we
can now get off the committee conspiracy theories and argue the real issues.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.