Neil writes:
>I am curious if Keith can re-run his program changing the one goal losses
>to BC and LSSU into ties for one run, and then into one goal wins for another.
>
>This would make Cornell's record against the top teams very strong, but would
>leave their schedule strength (over which they have little control) unchanged,
>and, I hope, show that because the ECAC teams are forced to play league games
>against the weaker teams, they have no hope of being top performers in TCHCR.
 
    First of all, this sounds like the "if I went fishing, I would have caught
    a whale" way of looking at things.  If Cornell did beat BC and LSSU, it
    would have improved a little - but remember also that this would bring
    down BC and LSSU a little bit, too, so that they wouldn't be quite as good
    as they are because they did win.  So their schedule strength would indeed
    go down a little, according to TCHCR.
 
    But more importantly, I think what Keith has been trying to point out is
    that the fact that ECAC teams - particularly Ivies - play fewer games than
    most of the rest of the DivI teams is irrelevant.  What is important is your
    average performance against teams you *do* play and how strong they are,
    measured by *their* opponents, and their opponents' opponents, and so on.
    If Cornell is so much better than the weaker ECAC teams, then it should
    not have lost to Brown and Princeton, beat Princeton by only a goal and
    Dartmouth by only two at Lynah, etc.  These are the games that hurt
    Cornell's TCHCR ranking, from my point of view - not losing close games
    to BC and LSSU.
 
    I would be interested to see how TCHCR ranks teams in past years.  For
    instance, I wonder where RPI in 1985 (20-1 ECAC) would end up.  That
    was a team that won virtually all the games it should have won.
 
>While I'm asking, I am also curious about Mike's opinion of how the
>quarterfinals affected his NCAA prognostications, since Cornell's two
>wins against Colgate now gives Cornell a better record than BU against
>common opponents.  Would he now seed Cornell third? What if Cornell goes
>on to beat St. Lawrence and Clarkson?
 
    My revised Eastern seeds:
 
    1 Boston College
    2 Maine
    3 Clarkson
    4 Cornell
    5 Boston University
    6 Providence
 
    (My Western seeds did not change.  Last week, in the East, I had Cornell
    5/6, PC 5, and BU 4.)
 
    Cornell is now 8-4-3 (.633) and BU is 8-5-0 (.615) against common
    opponents.  BU did play many more games against "top" teams, but as far
    as I'm concerned, you have to win those too, and they didn't win very many.
    Thus, I see common opponents as the deciding factor here.  The committee
    may also consider the common opponents percentages to be too close to call,
    however, and give BU the nod on the basis of overall winning percentage
    (.686 to .661), so be prepared for that.
 
    The last three seeds are *very* close and could wind up in almost any
    order, with the condition that BU should end up ahead of Providence.
 
    I don't think Cornell ends up third in any scenario, even defeating
    Clarkson for the ECAC championship (which would make them 2-0-1 vs. the
    Golden Knights).  Clarkson's overall record is much, much better.
    Head-to-head usually only comes into play when the two teams are close in
    everything.  However, I wouldn't be surprised if the committee disagrees
    with me.
 
    Again, this is all my opinion...
 
 
    - mike