Not to be rude, but this is all rather pointless; do you know what was
*really* amusing? During the selection show when the head of the
selection committee said that they're looking forward to the day when
they expand to 16 teams, so there won't be controversy amongst the
bubble teams. Guess again. The bubble is immortal; b-ball's expansion to
64 teams certainly didn't eliminate it.
 
The fact is, right or wrong, Niagara more than justified the committees
decision, and for that, any criticism of that decision is out of bounds.
Sure, plenty of teams COULD have duplicated Niagara's performance in
the playoffs, but let's face it, that's unfairly raising the bar. Not many
people expected Niagara to advance (or even be *competitive* v. UNH,
for that matter), let alone be down one goal heading into the 3rd against
a well-rested UND team.
 
We have to judge this pragmatically; maybe the NCAA *did* take a flyer
on Niagara, but it paid off, and now a budding program has a bit of a
legacy to build upon. Good for them.
 
Unwarranted extrapolations are fun, as long as we sincerely recognize
the accomplishments of those deserving.
 
No, not a Niagara fan, particularly,
 
Robert
 
> Again, one game does not invalidate the problems with PWR.  Nevertheless,
> let's take a look at what you claim is so unlikely, focusing on two of the
> teams that are probably among John's 3-4.  Also, keep in mind that New
> Hampshire played poorly.
>
> Minnesota State, which you mentioned, went 1-1-2 against North Dakota this
> year, so I suspect that they would have done all right against the Sioux.
>
> Minnesota went 1-2-1 against North Dakota, and both losses were by one
> goal. While the Gophers went 0-5 against Wisconsin, three of those losses
> were by one goal, and the other two were by two goals only because of empty
> netters. Also, Minnesota went 1-3 against teams that finished with New
> Hampshire at the top of Hockey East and the two Maine losses were both very
> close (you may be noticing a pattern about Minnesota's season here.)
>
> Or let's expand this a bit and throw in RPI.  Granted, the Engineers lost a
> game to Niagara, but they also beat New Hampshire by a bigger margin than
> the Puurple Eagles did.
>
> None of this really has any bearing on whether the PWR formula is flawed,
> since those are arguments compiled over a lengthy period of time.  However,
> it does suggest that there were plenty of teams that were capable of
> beating a sub-par New Hampshire team and also hanging in with North Dakota,
> perhaps better than Niagara did.
>
> J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.