Over the past weekend I have noticed Cornell's PWR shift several times
over a range of 9-13 PWR comparison wins.  The main cause of this
(besides Miami's 2 losses to Michigan) seems to be some confusion as to
whether .500 teams (i.e. Dartmouth at 9-9-2) are TUCs or not.  The PWR
now considers teams with win% >= .500 to be TUCs.  This was not the case
several days ago.  I'm looking for a clarification.  In addition, there
was some confusion as to whether teams winning their conference tournies
with overall records below .500 were TUCs last year (i.e. Harvard was a
potential for this category, and much discussion was had on this point
last March)  Any definitive answers out there?
 
Additionally, I find the calculation of the COP category to be a little
inaccurate as far as reflecting what it is supposed to reflect.  Because
all games are weighted equally, a team playing Michigan 3x would be at
asevere disadvantage in this category against a team which played Michigan
only once.  Even if all 4 games were losses to Michigan.  CCHA Team A
would then see its COP 0-3, where WCHA Team B would see only a 1 game
deficit in its COP.  If the rest of the COP schedule were even between
the two teams then Team B would gain the category, despite playing to
precisely the same results accross the board.  This gets worse if CCHA
Team A played a lousy WCHA team once, picking up a single win, while WCHA
Team B picked up 3 wins against the same hapless team.  In this situation
the COP category looks like:
 
Team A               Team B
------               ------
 1-3         COP      3-1
 
Even though each team picked up the same results against the same teams.
This seems unfair to me at best, and truthfully, downright inaccurate.  I
realize this is the way the NCAA does it, but all the same, it doesn't
sem to make sense.  In my opinion, the better way to do this would be to
compare results against each COP.  Whichever team did better against that
opponent would get a single point toward their COP score.  After adding
up all COPs, then whomever had more COP points would win the category.
 
 
Even though each team picked up the same results against the same teams.
This seems unfair to me at best, and truthfully, downright inaccurate.  I
realize this is the way the NCAA does it, but all the same, it doesn't
sem to make sense.  In my opinion, the better way to do this would be to
compare results against each COP.  Whichever team did better against that
opponent would get a single point toward their COP score.  After adding
up all COPs, then whomever had more COP points would win the category.
 
Example:
 
Cornell - Miami
 
COP Games:
 
Cornell - UMich   = 0-0-1
Miami - UMich     = 0-2-0
 
Cornell - Colgate = 2-0-0
Miami - Colgate = 1-0-0
 
Cornell - Ferris = 1-1-0
Miami - Ferris = 1-1-0
 
Cornell-UVM = 1-0-0
Miami-UVM = 0-1-0
 
Cornell-Clarkson = 0-1-0
Miami-Clarkson = 1-0-0
 
Cornell-SLU = 0-0-1
Miami - SLU = 1-0-0
 
Total Records:
Cornell = 4-2-2
Miami = 4-4
 
Cornell wins COP under the current system.
 
Proposed System:
 
Miami                Cornell
-----               --------
  0       Ferris      0
  0       Vermont     1
  1       SLU         0
  0       Clogate     0
  1       Clarkson    0
  0       Michigan    1
=========================
  2                   2
 
The category ends in a tie.  There's a definite difference.
 
 
Just my humble opinion.  And lastly, anyone know if Stienstra will be
available for Princeton after his penalty aganst Ferris Saturday night.
(Personally I didn't think it was that type of hit to deserve either 5
minutes or anything else.  But 2 Ferris players lying injured on the ice
within 30 seconds of each other got the refs doing something I guess.)
 
Larry Weintraub '98
Let's Go Red
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.