>Since this thread began, I've heard four things:
>
>1. The committee uses the PWR to seed the tournament. "Case closed."
 
more or less true -- I overstated the case at first .... but not really
... since, as further explanation shows, the committee method and PWR
are essentially identical.
 
>2. Of course, regardless of a team's PWR, a regular-season win combined
>with a tournament win gives them an automatic bye.
 
This is a separate issue ...
 
 
>2. Now when there's a tie, the committee looks to the RPI.
 
I don't think anyone ever said that.  Only when there's a tie within the
comparison does the RPI get used to break the tie, and determine who
wins that one particular comparison.
 
 
>3. AND, the committee also uses individual comparisons to determine
seeds.
 
True.
 
 
>This is what I've heard year after year, and this is why I ask the
>questions that I do. To this ol' dumb yokel, it's not a cut-and-dry
situation.
 
None of the points above are in conflict with each other .... they are
all correct.
 
 
>A Big Thank You goes to John Whelan, who rather than attack my
ignorance
>actually answered my question about Yale, Cornell, and UNH -- and in
the
>process also showed that it's NOT purely based on the PWR.
 
Well it is really .... unless you throw in the stuff about automatic
byes and automatic bids ... which I didn't think was an issue ... I'm
sorry.
 
 
>I questioned what would happen if UNH beat BU for the HEA tourney, and
Yale
>beat Clarkson for the ECAC tourney. This is a purely speculative
question,
>and since I'm not one of those who crunch the numbers (kudos to Charlie
>Shub and again to John Whelan) I was curious. Shoot me.
 
Well it's OK to ask .... but
 
Here was your original statement ...
 
>So here's the big question for the peanut gallery... if the tournament
>committee looks at the PWR "and nothing else" as some have said, then
>playoff results have little to do with seeding and byes -- they only
help
>determine who gets the automatic bids. Given that...
 
I jumped on "as some have said" -- because it gets frustrating when no
one believes you.  That colored my reaction -- but in general, you had
legit questions.
 
I then corrected you that playoffs have little to do with seedings,
because PWR factors in the conference tournaments ... and thus has
plenty to do with seeding and everything else.  Automatic byes will come
to teams that win the conference tourney and regular season ... other
than that, byes go to best PWR teams.
 
Only cavaet in that is, the committee may try to balance out the byes, 2
east and 2 west ---
 
There is some subjectivity in the seedings .... no one ever denied that.
 
However, even there, if you know the guidelines by which the committee
goes by, you could more or less figure it out.
 
a) 2 west byes, 2 east byes
b) avoid same-conference first-round matchups, and second if possible
 
and some other things ...
 
You also asked whether Clarkson could drop ... and I emphatically stated
no!  I wasn't upset that you asked, only trying to re-state that it was
more or less fact, not opinion.  Just like with Vermont last year.
 
 
>>Yes - I agree it should be re-explained --- in fact, it's permanantly
on
>>USCHO ---- if someone wants to re-post it to Hockey-L -- go ahead ...
>>but the info is there for the world to see ...  And Greenie is
>>definitely not new to the list, with all due respect.
>
>Does this mean I shouldn't ask questions?
 
My apologies ... I overreacted
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.