> > (even though I admit I haven't checked the numbers -- I'll take the
> > gamble and go out on the limb --- logic tells me it's impossible to drop
> > from 6th to 10th at this point).  Case closed.
>
> Adam, assuming the poster is simply confused about the criteria being used,
> "yadda yadda case closed" is neither compelling or helpful.  We're all duly
> impressed, etc, that you understand the system.  Now, would you care to
> share that understanding with us, or do you want to get back strain from
> lugging those tablets down from the mountain...?  ;-)
 
Greg,
 
It's been repeated over and over again.  How many more times does it
have to be said? I didn't have to be a wise-ass about it, for sure, but
I don't understand the reluctance of people to believe a simple fact:
The committee goes strictly by the numbers.  Mathematics says Clarkson
can't drop far enough to be eliminated unless there's four conference
tourney upsets.
 
Last year, Vermont's own players, coaches and media didn't believe they
were LITERALLY guaranteed a bid despite losing the quarterfinal series,
so I know it ain't easy.
 
Getting people to understand is frustrating, but it was spelled out last
year, has been repeated over and over, and the original story is still
somewhere on USCHO.
 
Until people accept the fact that the committee doesn't use black magic,
you'll always have people complaining about this or that.  Just like the
fact that the pollsters aren't as crazy as it appears to the fan of the
one team who thinks his favorites got screwed.
 
AW
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.