Jeremy writes:
>No one is really sure why Clarkson was seeded so low, and why St. Lawrence did
>not receive the bid over Cornell.
 
I see this issue has come up again, and now's as good a time as any to
mention that the NC$$ does not weigh playoff results any heavier than
regular-season results, with the exception of giving an automatic bid to
conference tournament winners.  The reason people thought (and still think)
the Saints should have gone in place of Cornell in 1991 was that St. Law-
rence beat the Big Red in the ECAC semis -- but as far as the NC$$ Selection
Committee was concerned, that win was no more significant than either of
Cornell's two wins over the Saints during the regular season.
 
The NC$$ uses a number of criteria in determining who gets seeded where in
the 12-team hockey tournament.  The criteria are Division I record and
strength of schedule, and if they have to decide among two or more teams,
they look at head-to-head records, records among common opponents, and
records against teams "under consideration" for NC$$ berths.  (At least,
those were the criteria two years ago -- knowing the NC$$, there have
probably been changes since then)
 
In 1991, Cornell had a record of 17-9-3 (0.638) after the ECAC tournament,
while St. Lawrence's was 21-13-1 (0.614).  I'm not sure if the Saints'
record includes any non-Division I games (I don't think it does), and they
also played a ten-minute minigame in the quarterfinals -- I don't know what
the NC$$ does with those.  At any rate, Cornell had the better record, but
St. Lawrence's schedule was stronger (using the NC$$ "strength of schedule"
formula, which is some combination of opponents' winning percentage and
opponents' opponents' winning percentage, much like RPICH).  So the selec-
tion committee went on to the other criteria.  In head-to-head meetings,
Cornell won twice and St. Lawrence once (edge to Cornell).  Against common
opponents, which were the rest of the ECAC teams plus Northeastern and
Boston College, the Big Red went 15-7-3 (0.660) while the Saints went 18-7-1
(0.712), so the edge here went to St. Lawrence.
 
With two of the criteria pointing to Cornell and two giving St. Lawrence the
edge, it appears that the deciding factor was the fifth one, record against
teams under consideration.  Among those teams, the Big Red played St. Law-
rence (three times), Clarkson (twice), Lake Superior State, and Boston Col-
lege, emerging with a record of 3-3-1.  St. Lawrence played Cornell (three
times), Clarkson (three times), Boston College, Providence, New Hampshire,
Wisconsin, and Boston University, going 2-9 against those teams.  So the
edge, and the NC$$ berth, went to Cornell.
 
As for why Clarkson was seeded fourth that year, I don't have the numbers,
but I suspect something similar to the Cornell-St. Lawrence situation
happened between the Golden Knights and #3 seed Boston College (Clarkson
wasn't going to budge either of the top two seeds, Maine and Boston Uni-
versity).  Again, Clarkson was more successful in their tournament than BC
was, winning the ECAC while the Eagles fell in the quarterfinals to last-
place Northeastern, but the NC$$ gives playoff games and regular-season
games equal weight.  Whether they are correct in doing so is another matter,
but in general, the teams and seedings that the selection committee has come
up with in recent years are supported when you look at the various criteria
they use.
 
--
Bill Fenwick                        |  Send your HOCKEY-L poll responses to:
Cornell '86 and probably '94        |  [log in to unmask]
LET'S GO RED!!
"There is no use saying that honesty is the best policy to someone who has
 charmingly admitted, 'I know I know you, but I just can't quite place you,'
 if the reply is 'I was your first husband.'"
-- Miss Manners (Judith Martin)