Jon writes:
>> P.P.S. - can someone out there show a comparison of ranking systems vs. the
>> actual results of the tourney over the last few years?  If it can be proven
>> that they are more accurate in predicting winners than conference standings,
>> then I would withdraw many of my objections.
 
Last year, TCHCR had NMU #1 and BU #2 at the end of the season... :-)
 
>
>Finally someone gets to the real meat of the matter....do these
>techniques for ranking teams really have any predictive power.  If not,
>then using them to justify placing teams in the field has no more
>validity than any other method (unless you select one that correlates
>negatively with results in the tournament).
 
But this is completely irrelevant.  The seedings are never intended to be done
based on how teams are predicted to do.  They are intended to place teams
in the order of how they are determined to have performed during the
season based on the criteria established.  Else, we would just do the
seedings, declare the top team champ and the 2nd team runner-up, and hand
out the awards.  As someone said, this is why it is played on the ice.
 
Teams that are seeded lower may indeed have a better chance of winning or
being better than teams above them.  Northern Michigan may be the best team
in the tourney, but their performance this season will almost definitely
get them sent out East as a #5 or #6 West seed if they receive a bid.
 
>Frankly, I've heard the "ECAC is weak" argument ever since HE split off
>7 years ago.  So I pulled out my records and found the following:
 
That's right, and do you remember that it used to be "East is weak"?  Why
did it change to being only the ECAC?  Note that HE took several weak
programs with it - Maine and Lowell were both just moving up to DivI; PC
and UNH struggled for several years in the mid-80s.  But HE as a whole has
worked harder to build up the entire league than the ECAC has, IMO.
 
># Championships:	ECAC	2
>			   HE	0
>			   CCHA	2
>			   WCHA	3
>
># Teams in Final	ECAC	5
>			   HE	2
>			   CCHA	3
>			   WCHA	4
 
Well, there is also the following:
(1985 and since)
 
NC$$ DivI Championship Game Appearances
       TOTAL / TOTAL DIFFERENT TEAMS
CCHA      3  /  2
ECAC      5  /  4
HE        2  /  2
WCHA      4  /  4
         --------
East:     7  /  6
West:     7  /  6
 
NC$$ DivI Final Four Appearances
       TOTAL / TOTAL DIFFERENT TEAMS
CCHA      4  /  2
ECAC      7  /  5
HE        8  /  4
WCHA      9  /  6
         --------
East:    15  /  9
West:    13  /  8
 
>Does this mean anything for this year's teams? - No.
 
Right - in fact, to me it doesn't mean anything at all wrt this discussion,
other than to say that all four conferences have been represented well in
the final four and that as a whole, DivI is relatively even.  I don't think
anyone has ever suggested anything to the contrary.
 
>...Sure there
>are some weak teams in the league, but the ECAC's best have shown over
>the years they can play with anyone.
 
This will be, no lie, about the 20th time I have said this on the list
since it started, but *I agree with this*.  It is the weaker teams in the
ECAC - the perennially weak teams - who cause the ECAC to be hurt in the
SOS department.  The ECAC's best can usually play with the nation's best,
but the weaker teams are far below the other conferences' weaker teams.
 
 
- mike (hockey free marketer)