Larry Latour writes:
>I was also disappointed that BU stayed above UNH, but going 1-1 in
>the tourney DURING THIS WEEK does not clearly boost one team
>(UNH) over a team that didn't play (BU) DURING THIS WEEK.
>There are other factors here that smell
>(the Parker bias, UNH's second place HE finish vs. BU's fourth
>place finish, UNH's head-to-head season advantage over BU), but
>(1) it's been pointed out to me that none of those facts
>affect the ranking, and (2) THE GAMES during the week of point
>b surely didn't, in themselves, clearly lead to a switch.
 
Parker: since he is on the committee and his vote is one of the four
involved in the weekly NC$$ poll, then he most certainly does have an
effect on BU's ranking in the poll.
 
UNH-BU: the season series is even, 2-2-0.  UNH had a 2-1-0 advantage in
regular season play, but BU beat UNH to win the Auld Lang Syne Classic.
Also, it is correct that where a team finishes in its league in the
regular season is not supposed to have any bearing on their ranking as
far as seedings go; teams have been selected before over teams from
their own conferences who finished higher in the standings.
 
I think that an examination of the actual point totals of the NC$$ poll
will show that BU did indeed drop relative to UNH although they may still
remain ahead of them in the poll.  BU has 29 pts this week and UNH has 28.
Last week, I think the difference was greater than 1 point.
 
BU is ahead of UNH in RPICH but the difference is small enough so that the
teams can be considered equal.  After that, other factors such as win%,
strength of schedule, etc. may favor one or the other which shows me they
are very close.  Depending on which numbers a particular committee member
considers more important than the others, he may rank either BU or UNH
as the better team and I can see justification for both.
 
>Now for an inconsistency: if you buy into the St. Lawrence jump,
>which I guess I'm prepared to do (so please don't
>give me any more grief about that), how
>do you buy into the Clarkson jump over Providence?
 
I admit that I cannot explain this other than to say that Clarkson appears
to be the 2nd ECAC team, so they have to go.  Providence appears to be their
4th HE team and thus has to fight it out with one or two West teams for one
of the last spots.  What you say about positioning the teams for the
planned seedings may indeed be valid.
 
>P.S.  It was pointed out to me that the NCAA committee should never be
>confused with logicians.  I suppose not.  I'm just fascinated by all
>the jockeying that's going on here.  I'd like to hear from
>those experts and/or cynics in the "audience".
 
I got an interesting perspective on this the other night from my father - yes,
the guy who isn't a sports fan.  Somehow this subject came up and I was
explaining the whole process and how it didn't seem right because it may
not produce the 12 best teams in the country, and he said, "Well, maybe it
isn't supposed to."  That got me to thinking about a lot of the opinions that
I and others have expressed.  For me, and some other people, the main
objective is to pick the 12 teams in the country that have most distinguished
themselves and deserve to play for the national title.  For some others,
that isn't the main objective.  And from looking at the rules that have
been put in place (2 bids/conference, automatic bid to tourney winner),
choosing the top 12 doesn't appear to be the NC$$ or selection committee's
prime objective either.
 
Yes, I would like to see the 12 best go.  But it isn't my tourney.  Maybe
some other objectives were determined to weigh more heavily than just
picking the best teams (i.e. insuring adequate representation from all
conferences).  I'm willing to accept that this might be the case and it
probably is.  So, following the rules that do exist, I'll still try to pick
who will go but also try to remember that other factors also play a part,
and that maybe they should.
 
>P.S. 2:  (No pun intended)  Could somebody please explain Parker's
>role in the NCAA selection committee to me?  Does he excuse himself
>when the committee discusses BU? (Ha Ha)  Does anybody on the committee care
>whether or not a bias exists.  I've heard so much about this that I
>would like someone to set the record straight.
 
Well, we've heard a lot about Parker and his teams are so good that they're
almost always in contention, but it's important to state that the other
members also face a similar problem.  What about Rick Comley from Northern
Michigan?  His team could legitimately not even go this year.  The other
members, Laing Kennedy from Cornell and Jack Gregory from Bowling Green,
do not have teams in contention for bids this year, but last year some
people seemed to feel Cornell should not have gone (I wasn't one of them)
and BG has made the tourney several years recently.
 
The rules are, whenever a committee member's team is being discussed for
a bid or for seeding, that member must leave the room.  But as some have
said, even though Parker (for instance) may have left the room, "he is
still there".
 
Biases are known to exist.  Each member is biased for his own team and his
own conference.  You cannot directly influence the seeding of your own team,
but you can do so for teams from your own conference and indeed, part of
a committee member's job is to push the teams from his conference.  You
can indirectly influence the seeding of your own team and own conference
teams by agreeing with other members to support their cause if they'll support
yours.
 
After all the politicking is done this week and the seeds are announced,
don't be surprised if the East does not end up the same way as this week's
NC$$ poll even though there are no more East games to be played.  There's
quite a difference between just sending in your vote each week as opposed
to getting together and coming to an agreement amongst the four of you as
to exactly what the seeds may be.
 
 
- mike