Disclaimer: The following does not neccessarily represent my views: I
am only trying to explain how the committee MAY HAVE reached their
decisions. Likewise, I do not represent the NCAA or anything official.
Please do not take this as a bashing of your team or league. Sometimes
I may even let you know when I disagree with them. Enjoy. --------Keith
===========================================================================
>>From: David Parter <[log in to unmask]>
>Can you say something about why Alaska-Anchorage is in the West?
The independent always gets put in the last remaining slot. This year, the
6th team in the East (Cornell) was better than the 6th team in the West
(North Dakota or Western Michigan or Ferris State), so Anchorage became
the #6 West seed by default. Also note that the next best East team, St
Lawrence, was also better than the next West team. Also also note that another
East team, New Hampshire, could have made it ahead of those 3 West teams.
================
>>From: David Parter <[log in to unmask]>
>More questions (for Keith and anyone else in the know):
> * who sets the selection criteria? I am not complaining about
> them, I am just curious.
The NCAA, as specified in the NCAA Manual and the NCAA Handbook. Our library
has the manual, maybe yours does, too. The Manual says record, schedule
and eligibility of players are the prime criteria. The Handbook says that
common opponents, head-to-head and other stats that I do not recall
may also be considered.
> * Who picks the committee? When?
Every year one member's four years are up and he is replaced by a rep from
the same league.
> * In past years, some committee members have resigned at some
> point before the final seedings, because their teams were
> invovled. Does anyone know when this happened, at what
> stage in the process, and who? Was this a rule, or just
> high ethical standards on the part of committee members?
BG coach Jerry York did this way back in the early 80's. BG won the regular
season and finished 2nd in the CCHA tourney, I do believe, but still got shut
out of the NCAA tourney! So much for ethics.
=================
>>From: Erik Biever <[log in to unmask]>
> I have a few questions. Were the weekly NCAA poll announcements really a
>poll of the committee memebers, or were they the results of your power ratings?
>Were the commitee members seeing weekly results of the power ratings, or did
>they not see them until the end of the season? Finally, if it's not prying
>too much, how are ties handled when calculating records? Are they disregarded,
>so a team that has a record of 15-5-2 would have a winning percentage of .750?
1. The weekly poll was truly a poll of those 4 guys. They did, however, have
in front of them various versions of the same stats to inform them.
2. The amount of info changed from week to week, but they did see the
power ratings at least 3 weeks before they decided. (My vagueness is only
because of memory loss, sorry.) Think back-it was when the NCAA poll
started making sense. (smiley??)
3. Winning percentage is defined as (2*wins + ties) / (2 * games played).
Thus, ties are worth half of a win.
=================
>>From: "Kyle D. Aumell" <[log in to unmask]>
>basically I'm wondering, HOW THE HELL COULD WE GET THE FOURTH SEED?.
First, winning the regular season means nothing in itself. Winning your
conference tourney means you get in, but it does not guarantee any
special seeding. Clarkson is obviously the #1 ECAC team, but to figure out
where they stand with respect to other teams, you need to look at the
schedules. (The committee did this by looking at average winning percentage
of opponents. Remember all those non-conference games the other ECAC teams
lost? Ouch!)
Clarkson's winning percentage was second best in the East. Their
downfall was their weak schedule, especially compared to BC & BU. It
is not that Clarkson's numbers were so terrible, but BC's & BU's were
better. Out of the 44 teams, BU's schedule was ranked almost 30 (thirty!)
places higher than Clarkson's. This more than made up for BU's 5.5
percentage point deficit in winning percentage.
Think of it this way: BC and Clarkson have similar records. Clarkson
got its wins by defeating teams with a losing record (on average). BC
got its wins by beating teams with a winning record (on average). Who is
better?
Actually, I could make a case for the Knights being the *5th* East
seed--the numbers for the Hockey East teams are that impressive. Personally,
I had Clarkson #3 for political reasons, but the committe (obviously) did not
consider the politics that much.
Finally, looking to the West, Clarkson's numbers compare with Minnesota
(#4W) and Wisconsin (#5W). They didn't rank up there with Michigan (#3)
and certainly not with NMU (#2) or LSSU (#1). [But then nobody in the East
looks as impressive as NMU & LSSU.]
=================
|
