Just for fun, I thought I'd analyze how this week
went in terms of the TCHCR predictions for what the first round results
should have been...
 
Series #1:  Wisconsin at Clarkson
 
     Wisconsin Rank:  8 (seed 5W)
     Clarkson Rank:  10 (seed 4E)
 
     Seeing as how these two teams were fairly close, with a rating differential
of 3.30, this should have been probably Wisconsin in 3 games.  It was Clarkson
in 2, by scores of 8-3 and 5-4.
 
Series #2:  Providence at Minnesota
 
     Minnesota Rank:  3 (seed 4W)
     Providence Rank: 9 (seed 5E)
     Rating Differential:  12.33
 
     With this high a differential,
     Minnesota should most likely have  taken this in 2, but Providence won
the first game.  Minnesota took series 2-1.
 
Series #3:  Alaska-Anchorage at Boston College
 
     BC Rank:  7 (seed 3E)
     A-A Rank: 27 (seed 6W)
     Rating Differential:  38.17
 
     Uh-huh.  38.17 is correct.  A-A over BC in 2 was the result.
 
Series #4:  Cornell at Michigan
 
     Michigan Rank:  5 (seed 3W)
     Cornell Rank:  15 (seed 6E)
     Rating Differential:  25.42
 
Almost definitely should have been Mich. in 2 routs.  But Cornell did win game
#1.
 
 
     So, what's my point?  That the TCHCR is not infallible, and the postseason
is a whole different game.  Not that the TCHCR doesn't have its merits.  Its
main problem is the fact that it is too objective, too algorithmic, which is
fine in itself.  But if the game's going to be decided on paper, why play it?
     Anyway, Keith, don't take this as a personal insult.  In fact, I definitely
endorse this as a way of comparing teams (and maybe it'll cause the ECAC to
expand to the full 34-game limit :^).  I'm just trying to keep TCHCR from
being a god, of sorts (which I can see happening).  So, keep up the good
work, Keith.  By the way, is there going to be one for this week, including
the results of the NCAA First Round?
 
Jeremy Hall
Clarkson University
LET'S GO TECH!  DROWN THE LAKERS!!!