Adam Wodon wrote:
 
> You liked the movie "Conspiracy Theory" didn't you?
 
I have never, and still don't, claim that this is a conspiracy.  Never
ascribe to malice what is more easily ascribed to incompetence.
 
> A.  because changing regions to avoid a second-round matchup is too much
> of a stretch.  1st-round matchups are obviously most important, and then
> flip-flopping seeds to avoid a second-round matchup.  But if avoiding a
> second-round game involves switching a region, that's obviously where
> the committee has drawn the line ... and that's consistent.
 
Consistent with an event that hasn't happened before, maybe.  But in fact,
from what he said, it is very definite that the opposite is true.  Please
let me know what the word "overriding" means if it does not mean that this
is more important than keeping teams in the region.  And this is in the same
sentence with the statement "first- and second-round matchups".   Later, the
interview explicitly states that teams CAN be moved from one region to the
other to meet the criteria listed, which includes intra-conference matchups.
 
If you are going to keep trying to insist that the committee doesn't make it
up as they go along, then you're going to have to get them to stop leaving
inconsistent public statements around.
 
> Plus UNH and Ohio State are better draws where they are.
 
I can't speak for the east regional, but if the games in Ann Arbor aren't
going to get enough of a draw with Michigan and Michigan State in them, then
we need to rethink the whole regional concept.
 
> If you read the Marsh story closely ... there's a comment in there about
> Woog telling Marsh how they should've gone East ... and Marsh says
> something like, "Well, that's nice Doug, but we can't just move you
> because you want to go."
>
> i.e. - they're following established protocol.
 
God forbid they should try to give the top ranked seeds they deserve rather
than putting them just anywhere.
 
But more to the point, you can't try to claim both that they're following
protocol established last year AND that this year's situation is different
than last year's.
 
> Are Gopher fans going to be complaining about this until the next time
> they make the tournament?  I hope not, I don't want to have to hear it
> for that long.  :-)
 
As to the prediction, we'll see.  But I was perfectly prepared to drop this
subject IF the committee had actually followed the process they laid out to
explain last year's events.  Instead, it turned out that they oversold the
process last year in trying to explain what happened and said things that
they didn't actually mean.  The "overriding philosophy" comment, for
instance.  Now, are they prepared to actually lay out what their priorities
REALLY are, or are we going to get more blather that they'll have forgotten
they said when a different situation crops up next year?  Granted, it's the
NCAA and I shouldn't have been so offended by the fact that they can't
follow the script, but I was.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.