Responding to John Whelan's and Tim Newman's postings,
 
It is unlikely that those "3 or 4 other teams" John mentions could have
beaten New Hampshire and also made a respectable showing against North
Dakota.  So, it looks like there must not have been any "flaws in the
selection criteria" as John asserts with the selection of NIagara.  But, it
was nice to see Niagara given such a low seed; it gave them the opportunity
to use New Hampshire to prove that their pairwise ranking, power-play
statistic, power-play-defense statistic, and shut-out record reflected
their ability to rather easily handle one of the nation's top-ranked teams
when all was said and done.
 
Also, it should be noted that Mankato was unable to beat UAH this year
(1-0-1 at Mankato).
 
Terry
 
 
 
>John writes:
>
>>> To tell the full story of each team's won-lost-tied record, Michigan
>>> was 26-9-4 for a winning percentage of .718, Michigan State 26-10-4
>>> (one of their 27 wins was against Division II Alabama-Huntsville,
>>> games against whom are not considered for NCAA selection) or .700,
>
>Tim Newman replies:
>
>> Just a minor clarification here.  Alabama-Huntsville is (or at
>> least has repeatedly claimed to be) Division I in hockey this year,
>> although ineligible for the NCAA post-season.  And yes, games against UAH
>> do not count toward the NCAA selection formula, although I believe I read
>> that games against UAH _did_ count toward the minimum number of D-I games
>> necessary to be tourney-eligible.   This is the second and final year
>> of the probationary period for UAH following departure from Division II.
>> BTW,  Alabama-Huntsville IS eligible for the D-I tourney in 2001, I
>> understand.
>
>UAH, Wayne State, Bemidji State, Findlay, Mercyhurst and Bentley are
>all in the same position, making a transition from Division II to
>Division I.  (Most will be eligible in 2000-2001; one or two in
>2001-2002, according to USCHO.)  Wayne State also claimed (on their
>website) earlier in the season that they were already Division I (but
>not tournament-eligible) during their probationary period; I emailed
>someone at the NCAA for a clarification, and was told explicitly that
>WSU was Division II this past season.
>
>Also, the Selection Committee announced after a conference call in
>January that Air Force would be considered a Team Under Consideration
>only if they finished .500 or above *and* played 20 or more Division I
>teams.  This was an issue because their regular season schedule
>included only 19 Division I opponents, not including UAH, BSU and
>Findlay.  (AFA did play Niagara in the CHA semifinals, but finished
>the season a game below .500.)
>
>>> suspect.  For example, Niagara's last 16 games included only two
>>> against teams who ended the season with non-losing records, one of
>>> whom was Canisius, while half of Mankato's last 16 games were against
>>> .500 or better teams.  Similarly, Niagara's Ratings Percentage Index
>>> is inflated by five games against Air Force, while Mankato played a
>
>> This is correct, but not correct.  :-)  The writer is refering to the
>> Niagara games against Air Force in the CHA playoffs and Canisius near the
>> end of the regular season.  But, Niagara also played Alabama-Huntsville in
>> the CHA playoffs, and Alabama-Huntsville did have a winning record.  The
>> game against Hunstville was, in fact, Niagara's last game before the
>> NCAAs.  The writer might mean Niagara's last 16 games against
>> tourney-eligible teams....
>
>Yes, when I said "last 16 games" I was referring to the last 16 games
>Niagara played against tournament-eligible competition, which were the
>16 games the NCAA used for the "record in last 16 games" criterion.
>
>To be precise back, my mention of Air Force refers to all five games
>Niagara played against them, including the four in the regular season,
>since they all contribute to the Ratings Percentage Index.
>
>> Sorry to nit-pick, but I think people have been overly harsh about Niagara
>> and too willing to disregard their performance against Bemidji and
>> Huntsville.
>
>For the purposes of choosing teams for the present NCAA tournament,
>Niagara's games against Bemidji and Huntsville (and Findlay) simply
>did not count.
>
>> Niagara was a good team this year, and they richly deserved an NCAA berth.
>
>I still maintain that "richly" is stretching things a bit.  They
>certainly were no slouches, but there were 3 or 4 other teams that
>could have gotten in ahead of them if not for the flaws in the
>selection criteria.
>                                          John Whelan, Cornell '91
>                                                 [log in to unmask]
>                                     http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/
 
T. N. Long
TN Tech. Phi Delta Theta #102
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.