maybe here's where we need to find a better system for determining the
teams for the post-season.  the "a loss is better than a win" ideology
seems morally wrong to me, sort of like dumping your last three games
to pick first the nfl draft.
 
i suggest an opinion poll.
 
if michigan doesn't make the tournament (ouch, i should be shot for
speaking such heresy), they really need to look back at how they
closed the season with a 7-8-4 run, including:
  two losses and a tie against ohio state
  a loss to ferris state
  two losses to lssu
  two losses and a tie against michigan state
  two ties against western mich.
call me a homer, but i would have expected them to win at least 5 more
than they did, in which case they probably wouldn't be in this
predicament.
 
ironically, didn't bgsu do something similar a few years ago?  maybe
it was more like a non-conference loss to ohio state during the
season.  and if they hadn't played that game, they would have made the
tournament?
 
at any rate, i predict michigan will knock off ohio state and michigan
state, and earn an automatic bid to the tournament.  i think the
combined scores of those two games will be 17-2.
 
enjoy the conference championships...
 
scott quakkelaar
michigan, 1993
ucla, 1995
 
---Bob Griebel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> John Whelan's "if the season ended today" has reinforced my
suspicion that
> Michigan shot themselves in the foot with this weekend's success.
Two weeks ago
> Tuesday, with Bowling Green vs Ohio State being the only hockey
action in the
> country, Michigan leapfrogged two teams in the PWR rankings by
virtue of Bowling
> Green's win over OSU.  That put BG, a team Michigan swept 3-0 in the
regular
> season, at .500, made them a TUC for PWR purposes and fattened
Michigan's PWR.
> BG then closed the season with another win over OSU, putting BG one
game above
> .500.
>
> This past weekend, Michigan swept BG in two games, ending BG's
season at one
> game below .500 and relegating a team UM swept 5-0 (a team which
swept OSU 3-0)
> to "Team Not Under Consideration" status.  I felt Michigan could
have benefited
> from a Saturday night loss, which would have ensured BG couldn't
slip below .500
> on the season.  Instead, Michigan is now 12th in the PWR, passed by
11th-place
> OSU.
>
> Quite possibly, keeping BG above .500 would even have been worth the
risk of
> blowing the quarterfinal rubber game.  Any wins Michigan gains by
continuing to
> survive in the conference tournament merely bump wins off the early
end of the
> "last 16 games" factor.  And a loss to Ohio State in the semifinal
would replace
> a win with a loss in that category, while a win over OSU in the
semifinal won't
> reverse Michigan's unfavorable head-to-head factor vs OSU.
>
> Short of going all the way to the tournament championship to gain
the automatic
> NCAA bid, I'm not sure that sweeping the quarterfinal could possibly
put
> Michigan in better shape than splitting the quarterfinals would
have.  Can
> anyone running a PWR application answer that?  Merely tacking a
season ending
> win onto BG's record and a corresponding loss onto Michigan's
current status
> would show the benefit of a three game split (vs the two game sweep)
to Michigan
> and the detriment to OSU.  I'm guessing that Michigan would pass OSU
and that
> any remaining games, if Michigan State wins the CCHA tournament,
wouldn't change
> that result.  Should Michigan have blown one for the Gipper?
>
> Bob
>
> .
>
> HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
> [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
>
 
==
 
unbreakable toys are often useful for breaking other toys
 
                                        -- author unknown
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.