In a message  ("Re: selection made simple: 3 steps.") dated 98-02-20 08:52:56
EST, [log in to unmask] writes:
 
>> Shouldn't really matter (ie, how do you compare two teams by total wins
when one team has played 8 more games that the other), if the Pairwise is the
determining factor.  Now if we could only lower our pesky admission
requirements, we'd be on an even footing with the rest of the NCAA at last!
;-)     <<<<<<
 
I think the hidden wisdom in that smiley-punctuated sentence is appropriate
for a discussion of the capabilities of the PWR.  This is only of interest if
one feels there should be substance in the term "student athlete", that
college hockey is best played on a level surface, and that higher education's
first priority isn't to operate a farm system for pro sports.
 
I don't see a level playing surface where, for example,  one school with high
academics fields a team with an average age of 20.2 against a competitor of no
academic note skating 11 freshmen over the age of 21.  Jock U has been
encouraged to go after national championship calibre non-students because the
post-season rewards for engaging in that policy have been encouraged by the
"incomplete" PWR.
 
The process which awards tournament spots and byes relies on a statistical
system which overlooks the AFLF, which is computed using the AAI and the AQI.
I don't know precisely how my proposed Academic Field-Leveling Factor should
be quantitatively determined by the Average Age Index and the Academic
Qualification Index before it's applied to the preliminary PWR.  That takes
somebody smarter.  But I think that an appropriately designed adjustment to
the conveniently available PWR tool could go a long way to reduce the
attractiveness of loading up on older players who have no real academic
interest.
 
The proposed adjustment is simple once the computation producing an
appropriately weighted factor is devised.  The AFLF factor is derived from a
computation considering each school's ranking in the AAI and AQI, expressed as
a decimal, first place being awarded 1.00.  Multiply the existing PWR by the
AFLF to produce a revised ordering of the standings which will have the effect
of dropping Jock U's ranking, possibly right out of the NCAA tournament.
 
An accompanying revision of the automatic bye rules is also needed, since the
current rules provide a safe haven for the school that's blatant enough in its
disregard of academics to buy mercenary athletes good enough to finish first.
 
Thoughts on the new factors.  Raw ages used to compute the Average Age Index
should be adjusted to eliminate prejudice against senior-heavy teams.  Each
player's age on January 1st should be reduced by one year for each full season
he's actually played.  Effectively, each player's contribution to the
computation is pegged to the age at which he began his active college play.
 
The Academic Qualification Index could be based on players' SATs, ACTs, a
combination of those two, or any independently-determined rating system that
puts all athletes on an equal evaluative footing and is not influenced by
their school's shabby grading standard.
 
This suggestion robs nobody of the opportunity to play college hockey.  It
merely robs Jock U. of its success at using anti-academic policies to rob the
players from Student-Athlete U. of a fair chance to emerge as champions.  It
helps level the playing surface for small schools with high academics and
limited scholarship funds.  It gives student bodies which can be legitimately
proud of their academic achievements a greater chance to take pride in their
teams.  It'll never fly.
 
Bob Griebel
Michigan
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.