J Michael Neal says:
 
>Mike Machnik wrote:
 
>> Fans may not know the process, but that doesn't mean the committee doesn't
>> know it.
 
>Besides the committee telling us they have a process, what evidence of
>it do we have?  On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence that they
>don't have a process:
 
>        In 95, Clarkson wins the conference regular season and  tourney
>        but does not get an auto bye.  This year, BU accomplishes the
>        same feat and does get an auto bye.
 
        Actually, Clarkson did not win the ECAC tournament in 1995;
Rensselaer did.  But they would not have received the bye even if they
had.
 
        I think one thing you're missing is that the rules have
changed from year to year.  Avoiding second round matchups was not a
priority before last year.  The "Clarkson Rule" was not instituted in
'95, but it is now in place.
 
        This year's seedings are internally consistent according to
one set of priorities and procedures, but it was not generally known
until after the fact.  Next year the details may be different, and
we'll have a different set of criteria to justify it.  I'd feel a lot
better about the process if the selection committee published its
groundrules at the beginning of the season.
 
        The rules don't have to stay the same, but if they change and
we're not told about them, we're left scratching our heads every
March.
                                        John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                        <[log in to unmask]>
        <http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jtw16960/jshock.html>
 
Cornell Men's Ice Hockey: Back-to-back ECAC and Ivy League Champions
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.