therin lies the question.. are we rewarding teams for what they did all
year or who we feel is the best at the time the seeding is done.. in b-ball
they do both.. they try to reward a team for the year by letting them in
and then they seed based on how well they think they will do once the
tourney starts.. and if it comes down to 2 teams one team that had a good
year but is playing poorly at the end and another that had a bad start but
is playing well at the end they almost always take the team playing well at
year end. the coaches always admit they try to get teams to peak so they
are playing best at the end.. and in hockey with leagues that play
different numbers of games and start at different times of the year the
water gets more muddied. if you want to reward a team for winning games
early you should also penalize them for playing poorly late. the problem
isn't PWR, the problem is that it shouldn't be the lone criteria , yet no
one trusts anyone in the hockey selection process to be objective..

>This biased (though possibly not the most biased) Gopher fan does not agree
>that Minnesota is "playing like garbage."  Sorry.  Yes, they are struggling to
>beat teams in the lower half of the WCHA standings, but even the most biased
>eastern fan would have to admit that the Gophers play in the toughest league
>in the country.  There are no easy wins in the WCHA.  If the selection process
>is based on performance over the whole season, and it is, the Gophers will
>deserve whatever seed they get.  Perhaps the next iteration of the process
>will be more amenable to unbiased fans everywhere.
>
>-- Erik
>
>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > Well, just when we thought college football's BCS was a travesty, our
> own PWR
> > may prove to be equally flawed.
> >
> > Minnesota is proving that a few good wins early in the season can earn
> you a
> > plum seed no matter how many bad loses/ties you have later in the year.  It
> > seems to me, no matter what happens from here on out, the Gophers are
> going to
> > end up with the #4 seed in the tourney, even if they lose all their
> remaining
> > games.  Michigan, Cornell and Wisconsin have virtually no shot at
> passing the
> > Gophers, despite being teams leading/contesting for their various
> conference
> > titles, and winning games they play.  All of this is due to things that
> happened
> > in November, not in any way related to how the teams are playing now as we
> > approach the postseason-a reward for good play.
> >
> > What do I mean?  All three of the pursuers beat Minnesota in the RPI, but
> > lose at least two of TUC, Com opp and/or head-to-head.  In November,
> Minnesota
> > beat Michigan and Wisconsin (2x) as well as MichState and NMi.  This
> sweep of
> > the CCHA teams gives Minnesota the common opponent comparison over all CCHA
> > teams, and nails Cornell who lost and tied at MSU (their only connection to
> > Minnesota).  Likewise Wisconsin cannot dig out of the 1-3 hole in
> head-to-head,
> > which compounds the CCHA problem since they split the Thanksgiving
> challenge games
> > with MSU/Mi.  Minnesota is also benefiting on common opponent with HE by
> > virtue of a 3-1 record against, BU UMass, and Merrimac.  That .750 winning
> > percentage makes it hard for any HE team to compare favorably with the
> Gophers.
> >      In addition, the Gophers have managed to divide there record in such a
> > way that they have a very good TUC record.  They beat some of the top
> teams (CC
> > DU and ND in addition to the above games), early in the year and have
> managed
> > to confine most of there recent loses to really bad teams that probably
> will
> > not be TUC at the end of the year.  This hurts all teams in the comparison
> > with UMinn, most especially Cornell, which has the misfortune of having
> no bad
> > losses or ties.  Every one of the Red's non-wins is to a team that is
> TUC and
> > most likely will remain one for the duration.
> >
> > The net result is that it is very unlikely that any of the teams can flip a
> > comparison and pass the Gophers.
> >
> > Why do we have this problem?  Mainly because no consideration is given
> > (unlike say basketball) to how a team plays down the stretch.  If that
> came into
> > play, almost everyone, including the most biases Gopher fans would have
> to admit
> > that Minnesota is playing like garbage and in no way deserves a #1
> seed.  The
> > last 16 used to be a criteria, but it was taken out because it hurt
> teams in
> > deeper conferences when they knocked each other around down the stretch
> and in
> > the conference tournaments.  It seems that somewhere there needs to be
> a happy
> > medium.
> >
> > This is not meant as a swipe against Minnesota, but it just seems that
> > something is not right here.
> >
> > Just a few thoughts
> >
> >
> > William Sangrey
> > Cornell '87&'94
> > Let's Go RED!!!
> >