for putting the URL of the selection FAQ up on the list.
        http://www.uscollegehockey.com/news/1998/03/19_selectionfaq.html
 
having seen it, i can understand why adam has been getting upset at all
the posts.  maybe if the FAQ had been posted to hockey-l there would have
been fewer questions to the list.  There certainly is a lot of effort in his
"article"  Here are some excerpts that seem to get at
 
You say it's "cut and dried," but you qualify that with the term "more
or less." Why?
        The term "more or less" raises red flags for many people,
        giving them impression there is still subjectivity and opinion
        in the process. This is not the case in selecting the field of
        teams, though there is a little discretion in the process of
        seeding. That's why, for the sake of clarity, you will often
        see it emphatically stated that the process is 100 percent cut
        and dried.
 
        The miniscule part of the process that isn't determined by a
        formula is still run by a specific set of steps. It's not a
        mathematical formula, but it is a streamlined process with
        virtually no opinion involved.
 
        Thus "more or less" doesn't mean there is much opinion
        involved, it just means that the process isn't 100 percent
        formula. See below for details.
 
How is the tournament seeded?
        Policy then dictates that two non-bye teams from each region
        be switched to the other. The committee first attempts to take
        the bottom two from each region, but if that would negatively
        impact attendance in a severe way, or create intra-conference
        matchups, different teams can be moved, as illustrated next.
 
How do they decide who gets moved?
        This is where some subjectivity enters the picture, but there
        is a definite set of guidelines.
 
        In addition to a direct application of the criteria above, the
        committee also considers a number of other factors in
        determining seeding. First of all, a team that is hosting a
        regional is guaranteed to remain in that region. Also, in
        moving teams from region to region, it is preferred (but not
        guaranteed) that the bottom two teams be swapped.
 
        After that, the committee has a mandate from the member teams
        to avoid first-round matchups against teams from the same
        conference. This is their main consideration. It will also
        avoid potential second-round matchups if possible, as long as
        such manipulations don't drastically contradict the other
        considerations at hand.
 
        The attendance a team can draw to a selected regional is a
        consideration, but only in overwhelming cases, which can make
        for some controversy.
 
        All of these factors are weighed to determine the best seeding
        fit. For example, if moving teams would help attendance
        slightly by drastically altering the regions, the committee
        may not go that route. Conversely, if movement avoids a
        second-round matchup, but hurts attendance too much, it won't
        be done.
 
        For instance, this year the committee didn't mind having a
        possible UNH-BU second-round matchup because UNH is a good
        Eastern draw, and because the two teams hadn't played in a
        while.
 
Who decides these guidelines?
        These special guidelines and procedures are determined in
        advance of the season by the entire body of Division I teams.
        The committee doesn't make these up on the fly or on their own.
 
 
Why is everyone so gung-ho on avoiding intra-conference matchups?
        Well, this is a matter of opinion, and not everyone agrees on
        the degree in which the committee should go to avoid these
        matchups. But we can explain the reasoning.
 
        Since there are just four major conferences in college hockey
        and only 12 teams in the tournament, the likelihood of seeing
        first-round matchups similar to regular-season or conference
        tournament games is very high. The tournament should be a time
        for different teams to play each other.
 
        In the case of second-round matchups, the committee weights
        advantages and drawbacks before moving teams around. For
        example, if two teams did not meet in their conference
        tournament, the committee may be more likely to allow a
        second-round matchup of teams from the same conference. Or
        perhaps the committee is concerned about attendance, a very
        real issue. Or, for another example, two teams may have played
        recently, but split the season series, in which case seeing
        them play again might be a plus.
 
        For instance, last year Minnesota was dropped from a three to
        a four seed in the West Regional to avoid repeating their WCHA
        tournament final with North Dakota. In that case, the
        potential intra-conference matchup was avoided comparatively
        simply, though Minnesota fans were not pleased. In a similar
        situation this year, however, Ohio State was left as the four
        seed in the West despite the likelihood of a second-round game
        against top-seeded Michigan State, because the only other
        alternative would have been to send OSU East, which would have
        probably damaged attendance at both regionals as well as
        violated the bottom-two-teams switching philosophy.
 
         charlie shub   University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
[log in to unmask]  -or-  [log in to unmask]  -or-  [log in to unmask]
(719) 262-3492      (fax) 262-3369          http://www.cs.uccs.edu/~cdash
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.