Paulette writes:
>>No, this is not true at all. My whole point is that season long
>>performance is what should be used to determine the 12 best teams and where
>>they are seeded.
>
>Why? Why not consider the tournament as well.
I agree, consider the conference tournament too. And it is
considered. Games played in the tournament count just as much as
games played before the tournament. (except for Last20 criteria)
>Take Cornell's case this
>year. Our first game was against MSU, and it wasn't pretty. We didn't
>have all of our players eligible (not the fault of the current coaching
>staff), we didn't know the best combination of lines (who does in the first
>game), and we had only a few weeks of on-ice practice. The players were
>trying to adjust to a new coach. Why should it count as much as a game
>later in the season?
The selection committee agrees with you. That's why they have a
criteria called "Record in last 20 games". I don't have a problem
with this being a criteria. But it is only one factor. Your last
20 games count more than your other games do for this criteria. And
all of your games count in other criteria.
Cornell's excellent finish does count - to a point. But should the
entire selection and seeding process be based on *only* the last 20
games? Or even the last 4?
Where is the cutoff, and who decides when a team has finally
"adjusted" and its games should count?
>It takes teams time to work out the best gameplan. For Cornell, this took
>several months to overcome the damage done in the past. Now that they've
>done it, I think they should be judged based on where they are now, not
>where they were at the beginning of the season.
Record in Last 20 Games
Cornell 15-4-1
Mass Lowell 15-4-1
Where do we go now?
Cornell and Lowell have identical records over their last 20 games.
Subtracting those games from their records, here are the records they
started out with:
Cornell 6-4-3
Mass Lowell 10-5-3
Cornell and Lowell had identical finishes. Lowell had a better start,
including 6-1-2 in their first nine games. Why shouldn't an overall
view of the picture (including other factors that take into account
the whole season) result in ranking Lowell higher? How do you break
the 15-4-1 tie?
See, I am trying to point out that how you did down the stretch is
part of the story, but it is only *one* part.
>By only considering the
>regular season, you penalize teams who have worked out problems such as
>strategy issues and injuries.
But by only considering the last few games of the year, you penalize
teams who have worked out those problems from the start and proven
themselves all year long.
Also, I don't just consider the regular season. I consider the
tournament too. I just don't give it more weight than the regular
season. The tournament carries more weight when determining the
tournament champion. It shouldn't carry more weight when determining
the selection, seeding and champion of another, separate tournament
(NCAA).
>When you do any kind of selection, you should select with the same
>conditions you will be using after the selection process. If I want to
>pick out ampicillin resistant bacteria in my experiments, I select with
>ampicillin. If I want to select the best skaters for my hockey team, I
>hold my training camp on an ice surface, not a swimming pool. If I want to
>pick the teams who will best compete in a tournament, I pick the teams who
>performed best in previous tournaments.
Two years ago, Boston College beat Northeastern and Harvard to win the
Beanpot. They proved they could compete well in a tournament. Should
they have been given an NCAA bid as a result?
If we only want to talk about postseason tournaments, then what about
underdogs who make it to the championship game but lose, as Harvard
and MTU did? Should they have been given bids anyway, despite being
under .500? They seem to have proven that they can compete well in
tournaments - at least, they have proven it more than the teams who
were upset in earlier rounds. Should we take away CC's bid and give
it to MTU?
I'm just asking you to be consistent (as well as trying to point out
where I think your idea doesn't hold up).
>Vermont didn't care about winning against Harvard on
>Friday, and I still don't understand why.
I really don't think this is true at all. Upsets don't occur for
reasons that are as simple as this. I doubt you could find one
Vermont player who would say he did not care about winning the ECAC
Championship - a title that Vermont has never won - just because they
had gained a bid by winning the regular season. What about teams that
gained that bid in the past and did win? And what about teams that
hadn't gained that bid (before it was put in last year) and still
lost?
Even before the regular season bid, history shows that we had teams
who finished first and did so incredibly well in the regular season
that they were definitely going to get a bid whatever happened. Some
of those teams won their conference tournaments. And some lost.
There isn't a simple explanation that covers all of these cases. You
must look at each team and its situation separately.
Finally, it does seem to belittle Harvard's win to say that Vermont
didn't care. Harvard obviously played well, and Vermont didn't play
as well as it had many other times this season. Those things happen.
It's why they play the games. :-)
--- ---
Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
***** Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at: *****
***** http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html *****
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
