What can I say.  Adam Wodon's article resolved absolutely nothing for
me.  The seeds earned by teams during the regular season are dead last
in terms of their importance to the committee.
 
The following gets rather long.  Those of you tired of this discussion
are advised to move on.  Don't claim I didn't warn you.
 
Quotes from Adam Wodon's article on USCHO.
 
"Minnesota is in its current position for one simple reason: the
overriding philosophy that tells the committee to avoid first- and
second-round matchups against teams from the same conference. This
mandate is passed down from the coaches, after discussions over
the years at the American Hockey Coaches Association conventions."
 
Not quite.  For Minnesota to be in its current position, there is
another overriding philosophy.  For attendence purposes, even non-host
schools are pretty much guaranteed staying close to home if the have a
large fan base.  Minnesota is higher rated than either New Hampshire or
Vermont, but never had the option of being seeded with the lowest rated
bye-team (BU) because that would have meant sending one of these two
teams west.
 
"In the case of Minnesota, and everyone else, it comes down to simple
numbers. The mistake that many make is in believing that the
seedings are a wholly subjective process, or in being concerned too much
with what number seed a team gets. That number is often
irrelevant, because of the flip-flopping necessary to avoid those
intra-conference matchups."
 
I never believed that the seeding was a wholly subjective process.  In
fact, if Joe Marsh's comments are correct, I believe just the opposite
is true.  The committee has become so fixated on the rules that they've
entirely lost sight of the forest in matching up the trees.  And the
seeding number should never be irrelevent.
 
 
"That philosophy was instituted after coaches came to the conclusion
that it was unfair to bye teams. For example, why should No. 2 North
Dakota, a team that just defeated Minnesota in St. Paul to earn the bye,
have to play a conference rival again to make the Final Four? The
same philosophy holds true no matter which teams are involved."
 
Why?  I don't know.  Maybe because that was the seeding they earned?
Why should Michigan have to beat a much better team (by the rankings) to
make it to the Final Four?  Unfairness is in the eye of the beholder.
 
""We had our team doctor telling me how it works," Marsh said. "I said,
'Doc, with all due respect, I'm on the committee. I've been on it for
four years.' So these are our own people that think I'm an idiot. It's
so frustrating.""
 
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I am in no way saying that Joe
Marsh is an idiot.  I'm saying that the committee is an idiot.  This
would hardly be the first time that the collective intelligence of a
committee was less than that of any of its members.
 
"In this case, moving the bottom two worked out perfectly, especially
since doing so sent Michigan State back West, where the committee
was going to ensure it was anyway."
 
I.e. you can be the lowest ranked team in the entire tournament, not be
the host of the regional, and still be assured of being placed in it.
This keeps creeping every year.  It used to be that you were only
guaranteed playing near home if you actually had the guts to host the
regional.
 
"Cornell edged Vermont in the criteria, while Vermont defeated New
Hampshire, and UNH defeated Cornell. So with the teams even in that
sense, the RPI was used to break the tie, and Cornell was the odd team
out."
 
Of course, if anyone had stopped to look at more than one criterion at a
time, instead of focusing on each mechanical step at a time, it might
have been realized that you could keep Cornell and its big draw in the
east, send Vermont west, and exchange Minnesota for either of the
Colorado teams.  This would have produced brackets that FAR more closely
resembled the seeds than we have now, even while avoiding
intra-conference match-ups and protecting attendence.
 
"It should be noted that the possibility of just one conflict is pretty
lucky. In the past, a lot more juggling was needed to avoid those
matchups. It should also be noted that the policy of avoiding
intra-conference matchups is NOT written in the championships manual,
but it
is something that is discussed at the coaches' convention, and the
consensus has been to try and avoid then."
 
"Nevertheless, even rational fans will complain about the absurdity of
trying so hard to avoid those intra-conference matchups, accusing the
committee of being clueless, but not realizing that the mandate to avoid
those matchups comes from the coaches themselves. The
committee, in essence, is following orders."
 
Perhaps Mr. Wodon (or Mr. Marsh) isn't explaining himself very well, but
these two paragraphs don't exactly mesh.  The second claims a mandate
and that the committee is just following orders.  The first describes a
situation that is much more tentative.  If the policy is not written,
and there is merely some sort of informal consensus that these match-ups
are something to 'try to avoid', then it isn't a case of following
orders; the committee used its own judgement in deciding that this set
of priorities was paramount and seedings should count for little.
 
""I talked to (an upset Woog on Tuesday)," said Marsh. "That's how we
explained it. He would've liked to have gone to the East, but the
numbers don't suggest that. We can't just arbitrarily say, 'Who would
you rather play, Doug?'"
 
Which numbers don't suggest it?  Only the ones left after the blanket
decision has been made that Michigan State, New Hampshire and Vermont
are going to stay in their home regions.  But it is hardly arbitrary to
point out only the combination of all of these decisions pushed
Minnesota into a much tougher draw.
 
"It's that simple. No conspiracy, no lack of respect, no witchcraft, no
doubt."
 
And no big picture thinking, either.
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.