-----Original Message-----
From: De eP <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: NCAA seeding comments
 
 
 
>How can you say there are flaws in the criteria when Niagara not only
>didn't get blown out in the tournament, but they WON a game (against a UNH
>program currently voted a top 10 team in the league, a team way up there
>in the PWR, a team considered to be from the "best" conference, and a team
>expected to blow them out)???
>
>My take on Niagara's victory is it disproves at least for one year the
>theory that PWR is flawed.  It must.  I have a tough time buying the
>flawed argument now.
 
Upsets happen.  And, given the way New Hampshire played last Friday, I think
that a team like Minnesota State or Minnesota could have beaten them as
well.  The reasons why a lot of us think the criteria are flawed is based on
a number of seasons and a *lot* of games, and the simple observation that
most of the criteria have no strength of schedule component, and one that
does (RPI) doesn't handle schedules with limited crossover very well.  A
single game result does not change this; as I said, upsets happen.
 
Now, I also fall into the camp that thinks including Niagara was the right
call.  It wasn't *that* much of a stretch, so including a conference
champion is probably appropriate.  I am, however, biased since the next team
in would have been Minnesota State, and their PWR is also flawed.  Perhaps
not as badly as Niagara's, and perhaps not badly enough to drop them even if
it were corrected, but it's flawed in a way that I find more annoying.  (I
believe that I have previously stated my views on the WCHA's unbalanced
schedule, from which MSU benefitted not only in the league standings, but
also Record vs. TUC, Last 16 and Common Opponents.)
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.