Jeff Brune writes:
 
>I apologize for re-hashing an old subject, but I noticed that this week
>Minnesota was in front of CC in the RPI rating.
 
The teams are actually tied, i.e., they are within .01 of each other in this
week's RPICH, with Minnesota slightly ahead.  Last week, the teams were also
tied, with a slight lead to CC.  Last weekend's games didn't cause enough
movement in the ratings to break the tie.
 
>Part of this is because CC won
>the regular season championship and earned the right to play a worse team in
>the playoffs than Minnesota did, but this helped Minnesota's RPI rating because
>it gave them a stronger schedule.  Thus, CC has been penalized in the RPI
>because they had a better regular season record in the league.
 
On the other hand, CC has been given a presumably easier route to the
playoff championship, not facing a team seeded above #4 until the final game.
 
The WCHA could consider a different playoff arrangement, such dropping the
bottom two teams from the playoffs.  That way, the regular season champion
would start off against #8 rather than #10.  Of course, #4 would then face
#5 in the first round.  So it goes. :-)
 
>There is no way that Minnesota, who finished a distant fourth in the league,
>should have a better ranking than the team that finished far ahead in first
>place when both teams had the same league schedule.  Pardon my French, but this
>is bullshit.
 
Wrong.  Both teams did *not* have the same league schedule.  Due to the
WCHA's unbalanced schedule, Minnesota played only two games each against
Northern Michigan and Alaska-Anchorage, the ninth- and tenth-place
finishers.  CC played two games each against Wisconsin and Minnesota-Duluth,
teams with much better records.
 
Now, let's look at non-conference schedules:  Minnesota played one game each
against Michigan, Michigan State, Boston University, and Yale.  CC played
two games each against Michigan, Air Force, and Alaska-Fairbanks.
 
The result is that Minnesota's strength of schedule is notably higher than
CC's, thus their tie in RPI despite CC's better winning percentage.
 
>My question is how much weight this RPI rating has in the NC$$ selection.  If
>the NC$$ were to make the selection now, assuming that CC does not have an
>automatic bye by winning both WCHA championships, would Minnesota get a higher
>seed than CC, or would the selection committee supplement mathematical
>calculations with common sense and give CC a higher seed?
 
If the selection were made now, the other criteria (head-to-head, record
against common opponents, record in last 20 games, record against teams
under consideration) would be applied.  Let's look at them.
 
Head to head:  Even.  The teams split their series.
Record against common opponents:  CC 25-10-1, MN 19-11-5.  Edge to CC
Record in last 20 (thanks to David Naghski):  CC 13-6-3, MN 10-6-4.  Edge to CC.
Record against teams under consideration:  CC 8-7-1, MN 8-8-3.  Edge to CC.
 
CC would get the higher seed.
 
The actual decision depends on what happens in the WCHA playoffs.  If
Minnesota wins the league tourney, beating CC in the process, Minnesota
would probably rise enough ito get the higher seed.  If CC wins it, they get
the automatic #1 or #2 seed.  If neither team wins the championship, and
finish the weekend still tied in RPI, the other criteria will apply.
 
I don't know what "common sense" is in this context.  I would hope that it
doesn't mean the committee should show favor to one team by circumventing
the announced criteria.
 
Bottom line:  if CC keeps winning games, CC has nothing to worry about.
 
-- Erik